Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Aldershot Gas, Water, and District Lighting Bill,

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

London, Midland and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Southampton Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL (POWERS) BILL,

"to confer further powers upon the London County Council and other authorities; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of days estimated to be lost owing to unemployment since 1st June, 1929; and how it compares with a similar period immediately preceding that date?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): It is estimated that during the period 1st June, 1929, to 12th January, 1931, approximately 830,000,000 working days were lost owing to unemployment
by persons registered at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, as compared with approximately 610,000,000 in the corresponding period preceding 1st June, 1929.

Mr. TINKER: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures of the unemployed in receipt of unemployment benefit from coal mining, iron and steel, and cotton industries, and the corresponding figures 12 months ago?

Mr. LAWSON: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Can the hon. Member say whether there is any Measure before Parliament at the present moment which will reduce these figures?

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what steps are being taken to carry out the pledge to stimulate the depressed textile industry?

Mr. MACLEAN: Arising out of the answer—

HON. MEMBERS: Order

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow a succession of supplementary questions none of which has anything to do with the question on the Paper.

Following is the reply:

STATISTICS of the numbers actually in receipt of benefit are not available, but the following table gives the numbers of insured persons classified as belonging to the industries in question, who had current claims for unemployment benefit in Great Britain at 16th December, 1929, and 22nd December, 1930.

Industry.
Number of insured persons with current claims for benefit at


16th Dec, 1929.
22nd Dec, 1930.


Goal Mining
146,825
205,429


Pig Iron
2,352
7,609


Steel melting and iron puddling, iron and steel rolling and forging.
35,920
89,261


Cotton
74,653
258,601

INSURANCE BOOKS (STAMPING).

Mr. HAYDAY: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour how many insured persons have lost credit by reason of defaulting employers, and in how many of these cases, if any, have proceedings been taken by the Department against employers; and will she state whether loss of benefit to an insured person has followed such loss of credit?

Mr. LAWSON: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. Criminal proceedings were taken during 1930 for failure to stamp unemployment books in 944 cases, and, in addition, civil proceedings for recovery of arrears of contributions were taken in England and Wales in 218 cases. In the majority of these cases contributions were recovered and duly accredited to the insured person. I am unable to say in how many cases loss of benefit was involved. The fact that contributions are not credited to an employed person does not necessarily result in loss of benefit.

Mr. HAYDAY: Can the hon. Member say in regard to the number of cases where the stamp credit was not obtained by Court proceedings, whether further Court proceedings were taken against recalcitrant employers?

Mr. LAWSON: I cannot say, without notice.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for unemployment benefit disallowed by the courts of referees in which the insurance officer has contested the decision by lodging an appeal to the Umpire?

Mr. LAWSON: During the period 14th March, 1930, to 31st December, 1930, decisions were given by the Umpire in 1,171 cases submitted by the insurance officer in which benefit had been disallowed by courts of referees.

Mr. MACDONALD: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is in a position to state the reason for the high number of claims to unemployment benefits that were disallowed by the court of referees in St. Helens and in Wigan during the period 13th March, 1930, to 12th January, 1931?

Mr. LAWSON: As my hon. Friend was informed on 22nd January, 1,263 of the 2,542 claims disallowed at St. Helens, and 2,600 of the 4,414 claims disallowed at Wigan during the period in question, were disallowed on the ground that transitional condition (b) was not satisfied. These figures are mainly due to the large numbers of claims which were made on the passing of the 1930 Act by persons, particularly married women, who could not establish any claim to benefit under the new provisions. Of the 1,263 and 2,600 claims disallowed at St. Helens and Wigan under transitional condition (b), 720 and 1,932, respectively, were made by married women.

Mr. McSHANE: Does not that answer of the hon. Member deal with the accusation that is always made that married women get benefit so easily

Mr. LAWSON: I think that accusation has been made in ignorance of the facts.

Mr. MACDONALD: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons disallowed unemployment benefits on the grounds of not genuinely seeking work during the nine months ended 13th March, 1930?

Mr. LAWSON: 151,530 claims to benefit made at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain were disallowed by insurance officers and courts of referees on review after payment of 78 days' benefit during the period in question.

Mr. BATEY: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that John William Kearton, 24, Sandringham Road, Crook, County Durham, 42 years of age and an ex-service man, had his unemployment benefit stopped on 1541 October, 1930, because, owing to his domestic circumstances, he could not go to a training centre; whether there was any reason for stopping his benefit other than his failure to attend the training centre and can she state when his benefit will be renewed?

Mr. LAWSON: On the recommendation of the local board of assessors, which, I understand, was fully aware of Mr. Kearton's domestic circumstances, the insurance officer required Mr. Kearton to attend an approved course of instruction. He failed to attend and his claim for benefit was disallowed by a court of referees from and including
16th October. The period of disallowance expired on the 6th January and he is at present receiving benefit.

Mr. BATEY: Does the Minister consider that it was reasonable to order a man of 42 years of age to go into a training centre? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Would you like to go?

Mr. LAWSON: This is a matter which is dealt with by the local assessors and the court of referees, and I understand that the point before the court of referees was that he was expecting work locally.

Mr. McSHANE: This is an important matter. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the case of a man 37 years of age going into a training centre he himself sent me an official communication stating that the age limit was 36 and that no person beyond that age would be allowed to go to a training center?

Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware of the exact terms of that letter, but I am aware that circumstances have changed and that we have to consider the conditions in the different districts. I myself, as a matter of fact, have desired to send a man sometimes as old as 50 years of age to a training centre when the man himself wished to go. Every case has to be dealt with on its merits.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is not the question of age just a point of view?

ROYAL COMMISSION.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour if she has yet received an interim report from the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance?

Mr. LAWSON: No, Sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS: When will the hon. Member be in a position to make an announcement?

Mr. LAWSON: I cannot say, but the attention of the Royal Commission has been called to it.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Have the Commission been asked to give an interim report?

Mr. LAWSON: I have said that the attention of the Commission has been called to the matter.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Have the Commission been asked to give an interim report? If not, will that request be put to them?

Mr. LAWSON: I think, although I am speaking off-hand, that the Minister of Labour did state, when we were discussing the Commission, that they had been asked to give an interim report.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Does the hon. Member expect an interim report in view of the fact that transitional benefit expires on the 31st March next?

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. ALBERY: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will state any increase in the number of unemployed men at present in training centres which occurred between 27th June last and the week ending 6th December last, and any increase in the number of women on the same dates?

Mr. LAWSON: The increase in the number of men and women at training centres administered or financially assisted by the Department in the week ending 6th December last as compared with 27th June last was 423 men and 244 women.

Mr. ALBERY: In view of the statement made last July, can the hon. Member say whether any steps have been taken to increase this very small number?

Mr. LAWSON: There are other centres in process of being established.

Mr. ALBERY: But can the hon. Member give the House any idea when they will be available? What figure is the Minister of Labour aiming at?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the industry has received notice from my union, the Engineers' Union, regarding this very point, and that they complain that these trainees are being used to break the wages of the engineers at present employed?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different point altogether.

REORGANISATION (DISPLACED LABOUR).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour if she can give any estimate of the displacement of labour due to industrial reorganisation and new mechanical methods?

Mr. LAWSON: I am afraid that it is not practicable to distinguish, among the whole body of unemployed, those persons who have lost their employment owing to industrial reorganisation and new mechanical methods.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can the hon. Gentleman say what displacement of labour is due to the fact that there is a Socialist Government in power?

ALLOTMENT HOLDERS (BENEFIT).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she will give an assurance that unemployed persons who are provided with smallholdings and allotments under Part 11 of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill will not be disallowed unemployment insurance benefit nor be classified as becoming not normally insured persons?

Mr. LAWSON: The question whether unemployment benefit can be allowed in a particular case is a matter for the independent statutory authority. It seems to be clear, however, from previous decisions of the umpire that the cultivation of an allotment garden will be no bar to benefit if the cultivator is available to take suitable employment. The right of a smallholder to receive benefit, would depend on the circumstances of the case, and would be decided by the statutory authority, but in no case could a smallholder receive both unemployment benefit and the maintenance allowance to be provided under the Bill.

WOMEN (ARMY CANTEENS).

Mr. AYLES: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she will see that no woman is deprived of her unemployment benefit because she refuses to take a post in an army canteen, either on the grounds that she is conscientiously opposed to war or to the handling of intoxicants; and that she is informed accordingly when such employment is offered?

Mr. LAWSON: The question whether benefit shall be withheld is decided, in accordance with the provisions of the Acts, by the special statutory authorities and my right hon. Friend has therefore no power to take the action suggested.

Mr. AYLES: Do I understand that the Government are prepared to allow con-
scientious objection at all times except peace time?

Viscountess ASTOR: Is this a question of war?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that I received a reply from the Minister of Labour saying that no individual who had not been in the habit of being in domestic service who refused to go into domestic service would be penalised?

Mr. LAWSON: The question deals with canteens. The point raised by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is one for the board of assessors and the court of referees, and he will remember that under the Act the decision of these cases was deliberately put outside the discretion of the Minister by the House.

UMPIRE'S DECISIONS.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether all umpire's decisions are circulated to members of local courts of referees; and, if not, whether she will take steps to secure that in future the lay members of the courts of referees are placed in possession of the same information as is received by the chairmen?

Mr. LAWSON: A copy of the analytical guide to the umpire's decisions and of all the important decisions given by the umpire since April, 1928, is placed before each of the assessors at every sitting of the court of referees.

Mr. TAYLOR: May I ask whether an ordinary member of the court is entitled to take such documents away in order to study them and to make himself familiar with the evidence?

Mr. LAWSON: No. The intention of the Ministry is that they shall be there at the court at the disposal of members when they attend.

Mr. TAYLOR: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour what are the appropriate umpire's decisions in which it has been decided that a general presumption arises that a man who has done no insurable work for five years may be regarded as not normally insurable?

Mr. LAWSON: The umpire's decision which presumably my hon. Friend has in
mind is No. 3367/1930. My right hon. Friend is sending him a copy of this decision with her reply to a letter on the same subject which the hon. Member wrote to her on the 23rd January.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is my hon. Friend aware that this particular umpire's decision lays down a strong presumption that where a man with a good record of insurable employment in a depressed area has been out of work for a long time he is entitled to benefit, and is the hon. Gentleman aware that at many Exchanges this part of the umpire's decision is absolutely ignored? Will he inquire into the matter if I place information before him?

Mr. LAWSON: I shall be pleased to receive any information and make inquiries.

RELIEF WORKS, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of people directly employed at the present time upon schemes of work for the relief of unemployment in Liverpool for which grants have been made, excluding those working upon schemes submitted by the Mersey Side Dock and Harbour Board?

Mr. LAWSON: Returns received in respect of State-assisted schemes—excluding those mentioned in the question—in operation in the Liverpool area on 19th December, 1930, show that 3,378 men were directly employed on that date.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Does my hon. Friend not consider this a very small number, seeing that Liverpool has the largest number of unemployed of any city in England, with the exception of London, and cannot he make representations to the Liverpool City Council to press forward the schemes which have been sanctioned?

Mr. LAWSON: There are two parties to these schemes, and my right hon. Friend has indicated them. It is for the local authority to put the schemes in hand.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the gross amount of the schemes that have been submitted for grant and in proper order by the Liverpool City Council since 6th November,
1930, for the relief of unemployment; and the amount of money that has been sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee for the relief of unemployment in Liverpool since 6th November, 1930?

Mr. LAWSON: Since 6th November, 1930, the Liverpool Corporation have submitted to the Unemployment Grants Committee five schemes of work for the relief of unemployment, estimated to cost £56,483. Since the same date, four schemes of work submitted by the Corporation, of an estimated total cost of £21,466, have been approved for grant on the recommendation of the Committee.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will my hon. Friend make representations to the Liverpool Corporation to press forward these schemes and get on with the job so as to get more men employed?

Mr. LAWSON: It is for the local authorities to go ahead with the schemes once they have been sanctioned.

Viscountess ASTOR: Do these schemes include any work for any women at all?

Mr. LAWSON: That all depends on the local authority.

Viscountess ASTOR: It ought to depend on the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY (ALIENS).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour how many of the personnel of the beet-sugar factories' staff are aliens holding certificates from the Ministry?

Mr. LAWSON: The number of aliens working under permit in beet-sugar factories is 67, of whom 28 are process workers employed only during the manufacturing campaign.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any steps have been taken to replace these aliens by British engineers and workers?

Mr. LAWSON: Not as far as I know, but I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that these figures compare with 9,000 regularly employed during the manufacturing campaign.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction, at least on the part of one local authority, against these alien people?

Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware of that fact, but, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, in this particular industry it has been necessary to employ certain key men and skilled men; otherwise, the work could not have been done.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that a great many of these factories could never have been started without the initial help of aliens?

Mr. LAWSON: Yes, that is a fact. This industry could not have been established and carried into effect without the help of these foreigners.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is the hon. Member aware that unless the Government do something to help the industry itself there will be no work either for aliens or for our own people?

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the cost-of-living index relating to selected retail prices was at 55 above 1914 on 1st December, 1930, whereas, owing to the decline in prices, the actual cost of living in various distrircts of London is not more than 30 above pre-War level, she proposes to widen the basis upon which the Department's figures are compiled in order to ascertain whether the official quotation is fully responding to the movements of the markets?

Mr. LAWSON: The cost-of-living index number purports to show "the average increase in the cost of maintaining unchanged the pre-War standard of living of working-class families," and there is no evidence, so far as I am aware, that it does not do this with substantial accuracy.

Mr. SMITH: As the usefulness of these figures depends on their accuracy, will the Parliamentary Secretary cause further investigations to be made by the Ministry?

Mr. LAWSON: As far as the Department is aware, this statement is sub-
stantially accurate on the basis described. I am quite well aware that it is a matter of some difference of opinion, and, if anyone has any information regarding the subject, the Ministry will be pleased to exchange views.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask whether the Ministry of Labour will reconsider this question in view of the fact that there is a widespread opinion that the original basis of the cost-of-living figure is out-of-date and that a revised figure should be given?

Mr. LAWSON: As I have said, the Ministry is willing to consider suggestions on this subject from anyone who has information on the matter. Up to the present no better basis for arriving at this figure has been proposed.

Mr. THORNE: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the retail prices in some of the largest houses in London are in direct conflict with the figures published by the Board of Trade?

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Arising out of that question, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is aware that it has long been recognised that the Ministry of Labour index figures are on an entirely false basis and ought really to be reconstructed?

Mr. LAWSON: I am prepared to admit that there are conflicting views in regard to this matter and the Ministry is willing to consider suggestions.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMAS (CHILDREN).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the desirability of making the question of the influence of the cinemas on children the subject of inquiry?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): I do not think any general inquiry of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend would be likely to lead to any definite or practical conclusion.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the constant complaints made of the injurious effect of cinemas on children, and of their being the cause of juvenile offences?

Mr. CLYNES: I shall be glad to receive any information to corroborate that supplementary question. I can only say that much is now done by the licensing authority to prevent films having an injurious effect upon children.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be better if the censor of films was appointed by the Home Office and not by the industry itself?

Mr. SPEAKER: That raises a. different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADES UNIONS (POLITICAL FUNDS).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour how many trades unions, registered and unregistered, respectively, took ballots prior to 1926 on the adoption of political objects, as provided in the Trade Union Act, 1913; the total number of votes cast in such ballots; the total membership of the unions at the time when the ballots were taken; and the total membership of the same unions at 31st December, 1930?

Mr. LAWSON: Prior to 1926 148 registered trade unions and 41 unregistered trade unions took ballots on the adoption of political objects as provided in the Trade Union Act, 1913. The number of votes cast in 147 of the 148 registered unions was 964,720; the remaining union returned no figures but stated that the result was unfavourable. The number of votes cast in the 41 unregistered unions was 786,976. The total membership of the 148 registered unions at the end of the year in which the ballots were taken was 3,066,192. The membership of the unregistered unions at the end of the year in which ballots were taken cannot be given as no return of those particulars was made to the Chief Registrar. Membership for 1930 is not yet available as the last date for furnishing Annual Returns is 1st June.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Do not the figures of other trade unions which have a political fund show that in every case except one a minority of the members of the union voted in favour of the political fund, and is it not now a minority of a minority under which they have a political fund?

Mr. LAWSON: I am afraid that is a matter of opinion on which the hon. Member and I do not agree.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: If the Parliamentary Secretary will read the figures in the answer given by his right hon. Friend the other day, he will see that it is not a question of opinion but a matter of fact.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the National Union of Textile Workers and the National Union of General and Municipal Workers have held a ballot qualifying them to keep a political fund; and, if so, when, and what were the numbers voting for and against?

Mr. LAWSON: The National Union of Textile Workers and the National Union of General and Municipal Workers have not, as such, held a ballot as they did not come into existence in their present form until 1922 and 1924 respectively. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures for the ballots taken by the Unions out of which these amalgamated unions were formed.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Are not these two unions holding political funds in defiance of the law?

Mr. THORNE: Is my hon. Friend aware that the second union mentioned decided to have a political fund as far back as 38 years and 8 months ago?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is there anything in the law to exempt the unions from holding a ballot?

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is not the question put by the hon. Member a legal question, and, as such, is it not barred from being put in at the Table, and ought it not to be barred now from supplementary questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not think it was an improper question to put.

Mr. MACLEAN: I hope that that will be remembered when other questions are handed in at the Table.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the hon. Gentleman give me an answer?

Mr. HAYDAY: Will my hon. Friend also take into account that these unions now represent amalgamated unions, that they were separate entities before and fulfilled the obligations of the law then by taking a ballot.

Mr. LAWSON: That is so, and that is what I was going to say. They have become amalgamated.

UNIONS FORMED BY AMALGAMATION.


National Union of Textile Workers.


Name.
Date of Ballot.
Votes for.
Votes against.
Membership at end of year in which ballot was taken.


National Society of Dyers, Finishers and Textile Workers (formerly National Society of Dyers and Finishers).
1914
2,995
1,626
6,924


General Union of Textile Workers
…
1914
8,067
2,037
13,431


Yeadon, Guiseley and District Factory Workers Union.
—
—
—
(at 31st December, 1914).


The above Unions amalgamated to form the National Union of Textile Workers, registered 15th June, 1922.




National Union of General and Municipal Workers.


National Amalgamated Union of Labour.
1914
18,214
7,470
55,453


Municipal Employees Association
…
1914
5,858
1,784
25,341


National Union of General Workers
—
—
—
—


The above Unions amalgamated to form the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, registered 11th June, 1924.




National Union of General Workers (formerly National Union of Gas Workers and General Labourers of Great Britain and Ireland).
1913
27,802
4,339
134,538


British Labour Amalgamation
…
—
—
—
4,872 (at 31st December, (1913).


The above Unions amalgamated to form the National Union of General Workers, registered 17th August, 1917.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISCHARGED PRISONERS (CLOTHING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 24.
asked the Home Secretary what clothing is issued to long-term prisoners on discharge; and whether men released in winter time are given overcoats?

Mr. CLYNES: Overcoats are only issued when there are special medical considerations; but in the winter months governors are authorised to supply cardigan jackets. I am sending my hon.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Can I have an answer to my question?

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. Gentleman is asking me off-hand for a legal opinion.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the hon. Gentleman get the legal opinion?

HON. MEMBERS: Certainly not.

Following are the figures:

and gallant Friend a schedule of the clothes supplied to convicts on discharge.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Would my right hon. Friend have this matter investigated, in view of the fact that after long terms old men are sometimes discharged in the winter without sufficient covering?

Mr. CLYNES: Age and health are taken into account, and I regret that coats have sometimes been pawned after having been supplied.

Mr. KINLEY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only recently persons who had served long terms were released at short notice in cold weather without overcoats and with practically no money, and that these individuals have no means of meeting their shortcomings once they are released? Will he go further into the matter and see that these persons are discharged fit to face the world?

Mr. CLYNES: I shall be glad to have information of the cases referred to. No doubt that information would help me in dealing with the general question.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Are there not organisations and societies which deal with discharged prisoners?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (WARRANTS OF COMMITMENT).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the release of a convict who had been sentenced to two terms of imprisonment of six months, to run consecutively, after serving the first term; whether his attention was drawn to the matter apart from the communication from the prosecutor in the case; and what precautions are taken to secure that the warrants of commitment which are forwarded to the governor of the prison in which a prisoner is detained are correctly drawn in accordance with the terms of the sentence?

Mr. CLYNES: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the case of a man who was convicted at a Metropolitan Police Court on two charges, and was sentenced to a term of six months' imprisonment on each charge. There was no express direction in the warrants of commitment that the sentences were to be consecutive and in the absence of such direction the sentences were properly regarded by the prison governor as running concurrently. The prisoner was accordingly released after he had served a term of six months, less the usual remission authorised by the prison rules. After the prisoner had been released the prosecutor wrote to me stating that the sentence passed had been one of 12 months. On inquiry at the court I was informed that it had been intended that the two terms of six months should be consecutive, but
that through an oversight owing to abnormal pressure of work no direction to that effect had been inserted in the warrants of commitment. The responsibility for seeing that such warrants are correct rests with the court, and it is no part of the duty of prison governors to return for verification warrants which on the face of them are in order.

Sir W. DAVISON: There is no suggestion in the question that the governor of the prison acted wrongly in any way, but what I ask is whether there is any means of checking the warrants sent to the governors so that the decisions of the courts may be correctly communicated to the governors?

CLYNES: I do not think that that isolated instance would justify any elaborate procedure.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is an isolated instance?

Mr. SPEAKER: These questions are becoming a debate.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS.

Mr. ISAACS: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the conflict of opinion regarding the provision of Sunday entertainments, he will consider recommending the appointment of a select committee to investigate the operation and effects of the different Acts regulating Sunday observance?

Mr. TOOLE: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the decision of the Court of Appeal making illegal the opening of cinemas on Sundays, he will consider the introduction of early legislation to regularise the position?

Mr. CLYNES: The decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal of the London County Council against the decision of the High Court on the question of Sunday cinematograph exhibitions was announced only two days ago. The question of Sunday entertainments requires and is receiving careful consideration in all its aspects, and I am not in a position to make any public statement at present.

Mr. ISAACS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the cinemas an-
nounce their intention of opening on Sunday, and, as this may only lead to further misunderstanding, will he therefore, expedite inquiries?

Mr. CLYNES: I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay in considering the situation which has arisen.

Mr. TOOLE: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive a deputation from the people concerned in the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: Approaches have already been made, I may say, on that subject, and they are under consideration.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the cinema proprietors are still liable to penalties at the instance of informers?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a legal question of which notice might be given.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether broadcasting ought not to be stopped on Sunday also?

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

CITY OF LONDON POLICE FORCE.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 27.
asked the Home Secretary the nature of the complaints recently made by members of certain ranks of the City of London Police Force; and what action he proposes to take in connection with those complaints?

Mr. CLYNES: The only complaints of which I have any cognisance relate to the administration of discipline affecting an individual, and having regard to the legal and constitutional position, that is not a matter I can deal with on the material at present before me.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that all these sensational paragraphs in the Press are very much exaggerated?

Mr. CLYNES: Well, I think that the instance referred to in the question has been the subject of very much exaggeration.

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (PROMOTION).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that uniformed police constables of the Metropolitan Force of suitable attainments for admission to the special plainclothes branch are being advised by their superior officers to remain in the uniformed branch on account of the poor prospects of promotion in the Criminal Investigation Department; and whether he will inquire into this matter with a view to making the special branch more attractive to men of superior ability?

Mr. CLYNES: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he is not aware of any specific instance of superior officers of the uniform force advising constables in the sense suggested. It is, however, the case that promotion has for some time been slower in the Criminal Investigation Department than in the uniform force, and the Commissioner is at present considering what steps, if any, can be taken to adjust the position.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is not this another instance of Press exaggeration?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOTTERIES AND SWEEPSTAKES.

Sir W. DAVISON: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has now satisfied himself as to the inconsistent state of the law relating to raffles and sweepstakes; and when he hopes to be in a position to introduce legislation on the matter?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given on the 11th and 19th December last to questions by the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Day).

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the answer to which he has referred me, he said that, if he was satisfied that there was any general demand that he should look into the matter, he was prepared to do so? Is the right hon. Gentleman not now satisfied that there is a very general desire that the anomalous state of the law should be dealt with, and, if not, will he say what is the nature of the evidence which he still requires?

Mr. CLYNES: Well, evidence of a general demand. As yet, I have seen no such evidence, though little driblets of
testimony and personal opinion find their way into the Home Office.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it a fact that raffles at church and political bazaars are still illegal?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (SPANIARDS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 30.
asked the Home Secretary how many refugees from Spain attempted to land in this country after the recent attempt at revolution; how many actually came to the ports of this country; and whether they were allowed to stay?

Mr. CLYNES: I know of no cases to which the phrase "Spanish refugee" can be applied other than the two referred to in the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) on the 22nd instant.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether these two persons wished to stay in this country?

Mr. CLYNES: No, that is not according to the general evidence which I have. I shall be glad to supply to my hon. and gallant Friend full information on these two cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — SENTENCE, GLAMORGAN.

Mr. FREEMAN: 31.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to review the case of Doris Williams, who was found guilty of the murder of her child, but was recommended for mercy at the Glamorgan Assizes in 1927, and is now serving a life sentence of imprisonment, in view of the fact that she has now been in prison for over three years and that certain fresh evidence is claimed on her behalf?

Mr. CLYNES: I have gone into this case more than once and no such case is ever overlooked. The time has not come when I could reach and announce a decision as to recommending release. I am unaware of any new material evidence; but if such evidence can be submitted it will of course receive the fullest consideration.

Mr. FREEMAN: May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter again?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — INSURANCE COMPANIES (PROFITS).

Mr. TINKER: 32.
asked the Home Secretary the amount of profits made by insurance companies for the year ending 1930, or the latest date he can get, which insure persons under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and will he state what percentage this is of the premiums paid to them?

Mr. CLYNES: The returns made by the companies to the Board of Trade for 1929 show that, leaving out of account the interest and dividends on reserves, the amount available for profits was £519,824 which represents 9.29 per cent. of the premium income. This calculation, however, takes no account of the sums repaid or due to employers by way of rebate under the arrangement with the Accident Offices Association referred to in my reply to a question by my hon. Friend on the 18th of last month.

Mr. TINKER: Is that an increase on the figure for the previous 12 months or otherwise

Mr. CLYNES: The figures which I have given are the result of very great research and, on matters of this kind, I would prefer to have notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL (EXPENDITURE).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any expenditure has been definitely authorised by his Department in anticipation of the coming into force of the Education Bill which recently obtained its Third Reading; and, if so, how much?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): Plans for new school accommodation recently approved by my Department have in some cases been drawn up on the assumption that it will before long be necessary to provide for all children between 14 and 15. But as explained in Circulars 1397 and 1404, of which I am sending copies to the hon. and gallant Member, provision for these children cannot be separated from that for reorganisation, the reduction in the size of classes, and the treatment of Black List Schools.
It is, therefore, not possible to state separately the capital expenditure referable to any one of these factors.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I understand, then, that there is no estimate at all in the possession of the right hon. Gentleman of what is being spent in this apparently illegal way?

PRIVATE SCHOOLS.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will communicate to the departmental committee appointed to consider the problem of private schools the statement of policy made on behalf of the Labour party to the Association of Head Mistresses in 1929, in regard to the inspection and licensing such schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir. I do not propose to attempt to influence the committee in any way. The Joint Committee of the Four Secondary Associations, of which the Association of Head Mistresses is one, has been invited to submit evidence.

Lord E. PERCY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this very remarkable declaration of policy is one which would interest the committee and also interest the public?

Lord E. PERCY: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Education which of the 16 members of the departmental committee appointed to consider the problem of private schools, besides the chairmen of the independent and preparatory schools associations, have qualifications which entitle them to represent private schools; and which of them are members or servants of associations or public authorities which have formulated official views as to the inspection and licensing of private schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: None of the members of the committee other than the two members referred to by the Noble Lord can be said to be representative of the private schools, though no doubt several of them have experience of such schools. According to my information the following members of the committee are members or servants of associations or public authorities which have formulated official views as to the inspection or licensing of private schools: Mr. Chuter Ede, Alderman Askew, Miss
Crosthwaite, Mrs. Manning, Mr. Maxwell, Mr. Wagner, and Mr. Warren.

Lord E. PERCY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that in appointing a committee upon a subject, which the party to which he belongs has already pre-judged, he has exercised the care which he should have exercised to ensure impartial consideration?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir, I think that I have appointed an excellent and impartial committee.

Lord E. PERCY: rose—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: This is developing into a Debate, Mr. Speaker. That is what you tell me when I ask supplementaries.

Mr. SPEAKER: I wish the hon. Member would allow me to conduct the Business.

Lord E. PERCY: I wish to give notice that, in view of the curious attitude of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall raise this question on the Adjournment.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of students of the Royal College of Art in the last completed college year; the number of students who received instruction in design for manufactures during the same period; and the number of students who, having completed their course in July, 1930, have since obtained employment as designers or art workers in British manufactories?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The number of full-time students at the Royal College of Art for the last completed year was 386. There were 211 students attending the school of design, but this school covers a wider field than that of preparation for employment in manufacturing industry. Of the 124 students at the college who completed their course in July last, 16 are known to have obtained industrial employment as designers or art workers.

Mr. MacLAREN: In view of the fact that this college was founded specifically for commercial design, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has come for an inquiry into the whole management of the college and for bring-
ing the function of the college back to the purpose of its original institution?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I do not think that there is any demand for that. I think that the college is being carried on in a very satisfactory way.

PLAYING FIELDS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many playing fields attached to schools have been abandoned in the last two years, either as the result of heavy rating or because of their acquisition for housing and similar purposes?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health nor I have any information which would make it possible to say how many playing fields have been abandoned for the reasons suggested by the hon. Member.

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.

Mr. TINKER: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is in a position to state the proposals suggested at the meetings held on 13th and 14th January on the voluntary schools position under the Education (School Attendance) Bill; and will he consider issuing a White Paper setting out those proposals?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The proposals to which my hon. Friend refers were communicated by me to the Press and appeared in the principal papers last Tuesday, and have thereby obtained full publicity.

Mr. TINKER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the House is entitled to a White Paper?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I think that full publicity has been given; all the leading newspapers except the "Daily Mail" published them in full.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will subsequent proposals be communicated to this House?

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it the intention of the Government that we are to look to the papers for information, and not to receive any communications from the Government on important subjects?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: rose—

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. SPEAKER: I call on the Minister of Education.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I thought that the most convenient plan for everybody was that I should publish them in the newspapers, and I think that the fullest publicity has been given to them. They were published by all the leading newspapers in full.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask for an answer to my question, which was asked before the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall)?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: If these proposals are not accepted in a reasonable time, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of withdrawing them altogether?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: That is another question.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask for an answer to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: We have over 100 questions on the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is not a question of time. May I put this question—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have only reached No. 39. If this, what I may call an abuse of supplementary questions, continues, some alteration of the Rules which govern them will have to be considered.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I put this to you, Sir—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

PUBLIC HEALTH.

VENEREAL DISEASES.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether any representations have been made to him, under Section 104 of the Local Government Act, 1929, in regard to local authorities who have undertaken no propa-
ganda on the subject of venereal disease; the number of such authorities; and what action he proposes to take to remind them of their powers and responsibilities in the matter?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have received representations from one voluntary association in regard to the need for further propaganda on the subject of venereal diseases by local authorities. The surveys now being made by inspectors of my Department of the health services of local authorities include an investigation of the educational measures undertaken in each area on health questions, including venereal diseases. If it appears in any case that this matter is being neglected, appropriate action will be taken, but until the surveys are complete it will not be possible to say in how many areas no propaganda on this subject is being undertaken.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: When will the surveys be completed, or when are they expected to be completed?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid that I must have notice of that question.

WATER SUPPLY, CRICKHOWELL.

Mr. FREEMAN: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the condition of the water supply in Crickhowell, Breconshire, where there is a drought each summer and contagious diseases are prevalent; whether he is aware that a scheme for improvement by the local authorities has been held up for over five years on account of the failure to secure satisfactory terms from the riparian owners; and what action, if any, he proposes to take?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the difficulties in this case. The scheme involves the taking of water direct from a stream and under the general law the Council cannot do this unless they obtain the consents of the riparian owners affected. Negotiations have been protracted but I am informed that there is hope of an early settlement.

Mr. FREEMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman receives representations from the local authority, will he hold a local inquiry into the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will be prepared to consider that.

SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether the prevalence in London of small-pox has abated of late; and can he compare London and other parts of the country in regard to this disease?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The weekly notifications of small-pox in London have been at about the same level for the last three months; they are, however, considerably lower now than in the corresponding period of last year. Relatively to the population, the incidence of small-pox has recently been higher in London than in England and Wales as a whole.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 44.
asked the Minister of Health whether in recent outbreaks of small-pox in London the cases were found to have been vaccinated previously; and can he give figures?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The large majority of the cases of small-pox in recent London outbreaks were persons in whom no evidence was found of vaccination prior to infection. Of the remainder, some were vaccinated during the incubation period of small-pox but too late to prevent the occurrence of that disease, and others had been vaccinated only in infancy. The latter were almost entirely adults, and included no person under the age of 11 years.
I am sending the hon. and gallant Member copies of some tables contained in the Annual Reports of the Metropolitan Asylums Board showing for 1928 and 1929 the proportions of cases vaccinated and unvaccinated, analysed in age groups. The corresponding figures for 1930 are not yet available.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is it the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to advocate vaccination as a preventive of this disease?

INSURANCE AND PENSIONS LEGISLATION.

Sir K. WOOD: 42.
asked the Minister of Health when it is anticipated that the inquiry into existing insurance and pensions legislation will be completed; and if any decisions have yet been made?

Mr. ALBERY: 55.
asked the Minister of Health if he can now make any statement regarding the general survey of the various national insurance and pension schemes on which the Government has been engaged since July, 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: A report has now been submitted by the Committee, and is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. ALBERY: Is this not a matter that was mentioned in the King's Speech?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly.

Mr. ALBERY: When are we going to have something done?

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to take the opinion of the House on the report of the Select Committee on Capital Punishment; and, if not, what steps he will recommend the House to take with a view to amending the law in that connection?

Mr. CLYNES: I have been asked to reply. The Government do not propose at present to take any action concerning the report of the Select Committee, and I regret that I cannot add anything to the reply I gave to a question by the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) on the 20th instant.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether in view of the one-sided nature of that report—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

ECONOMIC SITUATION (INFORMATION).

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will request the Economic Council to furnish him, for publication and for the information of the nation, with a report upon the trade depression and unemployment in this country, now and during the last eight years, indicating the causes of the depression, with the degree of comparative importance to be attached to each, and the nature of the steps which, in the opinion of the committee, would be most
effective for the immediate alleviation of the present situation and for the ultimate restoration of the trade and industry and employment in the country to a condition as favourable as in the years immediately preceding the War?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I note the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. The value of the work of this Council on matters bearing upon policy in particular is its confidential character and the diversity in points of view presented. Such a report compiled by the Economic Advisory Council would not be in accord with its essential work, and I should not be willing to ask the Council to prepare for publication a report on such questions.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Are there not certain facts with regard to the problem of unemployment on which the opinion of such a distinguished body would be of value to the House and to the country?

The PRIME MINISTER: That might be so, but, if these facts are to be compiled with any opinion expressed with regard to them, some other committee ought to do it; otherwise, it destroys and changes the point of view and mental attitude of the Advisory Council.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider, then, appointing another committee of the same distinction for precisely that purpose, in order that we may have a really authoritative opinion on these points, which are of great interest and importance to everybody, but which are such a matter of discussion at the present.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am willing to consider any suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman makes; I think that we shall have to consider it.

Mr. WISE: Will the Prime Minister consider publishing in a collective form all the facts, without the opinions of the individuals concerned, as to the present depression in this and other countries, together with the reports in the various Government Departments and those published by various institutions at Geneva?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am perfectly willing to consider that.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Are there any factors bearing upon the industrial de-
pression, which the right hon. Gentleman has already pointedly described in the Labour Press, about which there should be given the fullest information to the public?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, if we had figures from America they would illustrate very pointedly the point which my hon. Friend has in mind.

SCHNEIDER TROPHY RACE.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement respecting the Schneider trophy?

Captain P. MACDONALD: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state what steps were taken to ascertain the extent to which the cost of participation in the high-speed flight of the Royal Air Force in the Schneider trophy race would have been met by private and industrial interests had permission been given for Service aeroplanes and pilots of the Royal Air Force to compete?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have received representations from a deputation of Members of this House to the effect that the money required will be raised from private sources so that no expense will fall on public funds. The Air Ministry has also had a further consultation with representatives of the trade. The Government must express regret that its attempts within the last 15 months to interest those concerned have been so little attended to that the time for preparation is now so very short, and our latest information, even this morning is that there is no certain guarantee that the funds can be raised. Although this delay must be to the disadvantage of the British entry, and although His Majesty's Government are strongly averse from perpetuating these contests between rival Government teams, they are so interested in the race that they are prepared under the circumstances once again to authorise the defence of the trophy by the Royal Air Force, and the provision of assistance as in 1929, provided that a definite undertaking is given immediately that the necessary funds will be available frim private sources.

Sir PHILIP SASSOON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he means that all extra expense incurred by the
Government in organising and running this race shall be borne by the Royal Aero Club?

The PRIME MINISTER: A deputation did me the great honour of coming to see me the other day, and we discussed those points. If the Royal Aero Club is prepared to guarantee they sum that was then mentioned, then the details will be subject to negotiations between the two; but I want to emphasise that the whole thing must be done immediately, as we cannot wait another month or two.

Sir P. SASSOON: I am anxious to make clear that the expenses normally incurred by the Air Ministry, whether the race is run or not, will not, of course, fall upon the Royal Aero Club.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not want to have any quibbling about this. A sum was mentioned at the interview, and that sum was to cover the expenses, which were, again, to be covered by private subscription. That is the sum we stand by.

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: Does the Prime Minister realise that it is very difficult to distinguish between the expenses which would be normally borne by the Air Ministry and the extra expenses of the race, and will he give an undertaking that he will look sympathetically at this question, so as to see that the sum is kept down to the lowest possible amount?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understood that there was no dispute at all about exactly what the situation was, and I would put it in this way: That the Royal Air Force are willing to waive their great objections to the 1929 situation in view of the circumstances that exist today and of their desire to see the race run with Great Britain as an entrant; but they—I should say the Government—are not prepared to find the expenses over and above what would be normally incurred by the Air Force and by the Admiralty in the use of ships if they were not brought there specially for that purpose, and so on; in other words, so that the running of the race will not involve a public charge.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware how very much we are obliged to him for his courtesy and
good will in receiving us, and how I personally, and those acting with me, will do our very best to raise any money we can?

Captain MACDONALD: I want to ask the Prime Minister this question: Is it not correct that he stated in this House a few days ago that the Government decided 15 or 18 months ago that they were not going to compete and why was I on two occasions before the Recess—

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. O'Connor!

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. O'CONNOR: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to afford time for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) relative to unemployment—
That this House, gravely concerned at the widespread and increasing unemployment among the people, calls upon the Government to formulate and to present to Parliament an extensive policy for utilising the labour of the workless in useful and essential schemes of national development; to include regional town planning, housing and slum clearance; the improvement of our system of transport, rail, road and canal; the extension of traffic facilities in our great cities, more particularly in London; land settlement; reclamation and drainage of land; afforestation; the extension and improvement of docks and harbours and the development of electricity and the telephone system and other works of public utility, the works to he such as are needed for the improvement of the national equipment, and the cost to be met by inviting subscriptions to public and national loans from the capital resources which now await investment; the service of these national loans to be provided partly out of economies in national expenditure, partly out of the Road Fund, and partly by a tax on the increased land values created by the improvements carried out under schemes of national development.

The PRIME MINISTER: The usual course will be followed regarding this Motion.

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he proposes to treat this Motion as a Vote of Censure?

The PRIME MINISTER: Votes of Censure are put down in a certain form. This is not a Vote of Censure.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday, Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, Second Reading.
Wednesday and Thursday, Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, completion of further stages.
Friday, private Members' Bills.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. BALDWIN: There are two observations I desire to make on this programme. There is a Motion standing in my name and in the name of certain right hon. Friends of mine—
That this House censures the Government for its policy of continuous additions to the public expenditure at a time when the avoidance of all new charges and strict economy in the existing services are necessary to restore confidence and to promote employment"—
which, I think, might be interpreted as a Vote of Censure, and I should like to see time arranged for the discussion of it. With regard to the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he does not think that that Bill will be inadequately debated in two days. He was good enough to meet the desires of the Opposition, and I do not think he was acting in any way contrary to the desires of his own party, by giving three days for the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill. I am sure the whole House will agree with me that the Debate was maintained throughout the three days at a very high level. It was a Debate of very great interest, and I think it could have been carried even farther. I am quite willing to recognise the enthusiasm with which the Government party desire that Bill, but, at the same time, this is a Bill to which the Opposition, or the greater part of it, object very strongly, and it is a Bill the details of which apply to every individual Member of this House. While we were all very glad to hear such eloquent and long speeches from the legal profession during the Debate on the Bill which has just passed Second Reading, we think this is a Bill which lends itself peculiarly to the eloquence of the back benchers, who have not had as much chance in the last three days. In the name of the back benchers of the House and of the
majority of the Opposition I beg that the Prime Minister will take into consideration the necessity for further time being allowed for discussion of this most important Bill.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is a Motion which stands in the name of myself and some other Members which I hope the Government will not interpret as a Vote of Censure. I should like to ask the Prime Minister what date he proposes to give us for the discussion of that Motion?

The PRIME MINISTER: The right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) asked two questions, the first, with regard to a Vote of Censure. That is a Vote of Censure, and I hope that the date for taking it will be arranged through the usual channels. The Government will be very happy indeed to give an opportunity for that Motion to be discussed. With regard to the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill, it is always a very great pleasure for the right hon. Gentlemen, as it is for myself, to speak for our delighted back benchers, but I think that two days for the Second Reading are quite enough, particularly as the Bill will be taken on the Floor of the House in its Committee stage. In regard to the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, I agree that the three days given were characterised by speeches of length and eloquence, but I am also perfectly certain that every point that was made could have been made quite adequately in two days. With regard to the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and his colleagues, the Government will be glad to afford an opportunity of discussing that Motion, and I understand that it will be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman and his friends if time is found in the week after next.

Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: In view of the fact that the Representation of the People (No. 2) Bill is revolutionary in its character, and was not mentioned in the election address of the Prime Minister, or in the election addresses of any of his colleagues, is it not due to the House that at least three days should be given for its discussion?

Viscountess ASTOR: What has become of the Factory Bill during all this time?

Mr. MAXTON: Would it be possible, having regard to the new interests shown by the two Leaders of the House in the back benches, to make arrangements that the Debate should be limited exclusively to the back benchers?

Sir K. WOOD: Why should we not have an extra day for the Electoral Reform Bill, instead of this mock battle between the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)?

Sir GEORGE PENNY: Arising out of the Prime Minister's statement, may I ask, in view of his statement that we had more than sufficient time to discuss the Trade Disputes Bill, whether he is aware that even three days were not sufficient for the Government to answer all the questions that we asked?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Vote of Censure to be proposed by the Leader of the Opposition will be taken prior to the Motion to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)?

Viscountess ASTOR: As the Representation of the People Bill was not in the King's Speech, why should two days be given to it and no mention made of the Factory Bill, the Children's Bill, or the other Bills which the Government promised?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that I had better refer the Noble Lady to the King's Speech.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I have an answer to my question?

Ordered,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Chairmen's Panel: That they had appointed Mr. Cecil Wilson to act as Chairman of Standing Committee B (in respect of the China Indemnity (Application) Bill, the Metropolitan Police (Staff Superannuation and Police Fund) Bill, and the Colonial Naval Defence Bill
[Lords]; and Mr. Scurr to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Metropolitan Police (Staff Superannuation and Police Fund) Bill): Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Colman.
Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the China Indemnity (Application) Bill): Mr. Charles Williams; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Lambert.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Atkinson, Mr. O'Connor, Sir Gervais Rentoul, Major Stanley, and Sir Hilton Young; and had appointed in substitution; Sir Henry Betterton, Mr. Hannon, Sir John Power, Mr. Reid, and Major Tryon.

Mr. Frederick Hall further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Thirty Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions (Amendment) Bill): the Lord Advocate, the Attorney-General, Lord Balniel, Mr. Stuart Bevan, Mr. Broad, Mr. Compton, Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Hammersley, Mr. Arthur Henderson, junr., Sir George Jones, Mr. Kedward, Mr. Lawrie, Mr. Philip Oliver, Captain Peake, Dr. Peters, Mr. Purbrick, Mr. Ramsbotham, Mr. West Russell, Sir Nairne Sandman, Sir James Sexton, Mr. T. Shaw, Mr. Short, Mr. Louis Smith, the Solicitor-General, Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, Mr. Tinker, Mr. Vaughan, Mr. Winterton, Earl Winterton, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL LAND (UTILISATION) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Unemployed persons not to vacate allotments on obtaining employment.)

Where an allotment has been let to an unemployed person or to a person not in full-time employment in accordance with the provisions of either of the last two foregoing sections, his tenancy of the allotment shall not be terminated without his consent on the ground only that he has ceased to be an unemployed person or a person not in full-time employment.—[Dr. Addison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that this Clause seems to me to be out of order, because it does not read. The new Clause reads:
Where an allotment has been let to an unemployed person, or to a person not in full-time employment in accordance with the provisions of either of the last two foregoing sections.
The Minister of Agriculture said that this proposal was to be a new Clause 16 applying to allotments provided for in Clauses 14 and 15. If, Mr. Speaker, you look at Clause 16 you will see that it provides for giving power to the Minister
to make grants for assisting in the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment for unemployed persons,
and it provides for seeds and fertilisers being supplied to allotment holders free of charge or at cost. I submit that if this Clause is inserted as a new Clause 16 it will not govern the existing Clause 16, and in that case where fertilisers and seeds have been supplied free to allotment holders, there is no provision in the Bill in case the allotment holder ceases to be unemployed.

Mr. SPEAKER: This does not appear to me to raise a point of Order, but is a matter which can be dealt with by the
Minister on the question that the Clause be read a Second time. The new Clause seems to read all right.

Mr. ATTLEE: This new Clause has been put down in response to the representations which were made during the Committee stage by the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who suggested that the allotment holder should be given a maximum amount of security. That suggestion was at once accepted as a principle, and this new Clause has been proposed in pursuance of what passed during the Committee stage upstairs. I do not understand the complaint which has been made by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), because it refers to Clauses 14 and 15 under which allotments are provided. Clause 16 is one which empowers the Minister to make grants for assisting in the provision of seeds, fertilisers and equipment for unemployed persons. Therefore, it is quite right that it should be considered along with Clauses 14 and 15. The new Clause provides that if a man obtains employment, he shall not be deprived of the advantages of his allotment.

4.0 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: As I am afraid that I failed to make myself clear to hon. Members opposite, may I explain the point of Order which I raised just now? This Clause says:
Whe re an allotment has been let to an unemployed person …. in accordance with the provisions of either of the last two foregoing sections"—
that is, Clauses 14 and 15. The Bill goes on to enact, in the existing Clause 16, that an unemployed or partially unemployed person who obtains an allotment, may be provided with seeds, fertilisers and so on, at a charge less than the cost. Take the case of an unemployed 4.0 p.m. man who secures an allotment under Clause 14 or Clause 15, and then, under Clause 16, is provided with seeds and fertilisers free of charge. If the man subsequently regains employment, I submit that he will not be holding that allotment entirely in accordance with Clauses 14 and 15. He will also be holding the allotment in accordance with Clause 16, and as this new Clause does not cover Clause 16, the result of his getting into employment again may be to invalidate his title to the allotment.
I shall be very glad to learn what the answer to that point is. It appears to be merely a drafting point, I admit, but we have to be very careful, especially as this is our last opportunity, to see that this Bill is drafted in a watertight fashion. I will not anticipate the Amendment put down to this Clause, if I should be so fortunate as to move it, but I should like to say that it seems to me that while the principle of this Clause is sound, a man who obtains an allotment under the exceedingly favourable terms of Clauses 14 and 15 because he is unemployed, ought, if he subsequently regains employment, to be made to refund what he is able to do. However, that point will come later. On the principle of the Clause, personally, I have no objection to raise.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): The point which the Noble Lord has raised is not one of substance. This Clause purely relates to the security of tenure of the allotment holder. It is to the effect that if he obtains work, he shall not have to terminate his tenancy of the allotment because of that. The provision with regard to seeds and fertilisers as in Clause 16 will remain unaffected.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I recognise that this Clause does give effect to the principle which, I think, I enunciated in Committee, that where an allotment is properly cultivated, there ought to be no excuse for turning a man out of the allotment; but I very much question whether a new Clause is needed, and whether it would not have been sufficient to have a quite minor Amendment to Sub-section (2) of Clause 14. I am, therefore, rather surprised to see the proposed new Clause on the Amendment Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. Although the principle may have been enunciated in speeches in Committee upstairs, this actual point was never raised, because it was never thought that once an allotment had been given to a person who is temporarily or partially unemployed—and that, after all, applies to the vast mass of the wage-earners of the country, unfortunately—there was any question that he should be disturbed at the moment he got into work. In fact, it would make the whole thing laughable.
Nobody ever contemplated that, and I am very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has been advised that this new Clause is necessary. However, it may be as well that his Parliamentary draftsmen advised that it cannot be done by an Amendment, as I should have thought it could have been done on Clause 14, because it will enable us to raise the question as to whether, assuming ability to pay back to the council losses on the advances made, some repayment should be made whether the Minister is content to leave is as it is provided, or whether he proposes to safeguard the ratepayers and taxpayers so that where a man has geen given an allotment in distressed circumstances, he should, when good times come again, as almost assuredly they are coming, recoup any loss of the ratepayers and taxpayers, at any rate to a certain extent.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I do not particularly quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman as regards the place in which this new Clause comes. I should have thought that an Amendment could have been made in Clause 14, probably at the end of Sub-section (2), as then there would have been close together the various rules in the Bill, and it would have been a matter of simplification. Nor am I going to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman for having brought in this new Clause. I do not disapprove in any sense of its principle. It does seem absurd that if a man ceases to qualify as an unemployed person, he should cease to hold his allotment. This Clause deals with allotments only. I am suspicious of it because it reads: his consent on the ground only that he has ceased to be an unemployed person.
I want to know how wide or narrow an interpretation is going to be put on that? Does it mean in the main that he has ceased to be an unemployed person? If undue weight is to be given to the fact that he has ceased to be an unemployed person, it seems an absurd position. If, on the other hand, the position is going to be that he has obtained employment and has also, for instance, left the district, or has obtained employment of such a character that he cannot look after his allotment, then, obviously, he ought to give up the allotment. But the case of which I am speaking is one which might be of interest
to the Leader of the Liberal party, namely, the position of the agricultural labourer. Here you have an entirely new position both in regard to this Clause and in regard to other parts of the Bill, because it is essential that if an agricultural labourer gets back to work, or if he gets only seasonal work, it is absolutely essential that his increased employment ought not to be considered at all in the matter of losing his allotment.
I would like some of the very acute brains in the Liberal party to go very carefully into the position of the agricultural labourer, and see if he is really safeguarded in this matter, because once money is spent on allotments in this way, and facilities are given to the agricultural labourer who is out of work to obtain these allotments, then he ought to have the greatest amount of security in holding the allotment. He is much more likely than any other section of the community to cultivate well. I should, therefore, like a clear answer from some representative of the Government as to what weight they intend to put on the word "only," and what are the conditions that are likely to be laid down. Particularly, I would like an answer to the question as far as the agricultural labourer is concerned. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is here. He might be able to enlighten the Scottish Members of this House as to whether, on this particular point, he is satisfied that the Scottish agricultural labourer is in as good a position as that of his English brother.

Captain BOURNE: I rather think that one or two of the criticisms made by my bon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) are based on a misconception of the Government's scheme under Clause 15, but one point arises on that Clause which, I think, might be answered before we give a Second Reading to this Clause. As I understand the Minister's scheme for dealing with allotments, the unemployed man who gets an allotment will not be in a specially favourable position compared with other allotment holders in the matter of rent. He will be charged a reasonable amount for his allotment, having regard to the nature of the land, but that rent will be comparable with the rents paid by other allot-
ment holders in the district. Under the powers conferred by this Bill, the Minister will be able to acquire land for allotments, covered by a halfpenny rate in the district, but the actual allotee will not receive land any cheaper. If that assumption be correct, this new Clause is perfectly reasonable, because, obviously, the man who has put work into the allotment is able to continue cultivation after getting back into employment, and is not, as far as rent is concerned, placed in a more favourable situation than other allotment holders. I can see no reason why he should be turned out, merely because he ceases to be an unemployed man. I am saying this because I think there is a misapprehension as to the Government's scheme.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has really answered many of the points that have been put. With regard to the purely drafting point referred to by the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), as to where the Clause should come in the Bill, he will notice that both Clause 14 and Clause 15 deal with provisions as to allotments, and it would be inconvenient, therefore, merely to make an Amendment to Clause 14. I think the right hon. Gentleman may be satisfied that that drafting point is correctly dealt with. The hon. and gallant Member for Oxford is perfectly right in saying that rent and so forth will be charged on the same basis as in the case of any other allotment holders. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I do not think he quite comprehended the words of the Clause. He seemed to suggest that, because this Clause says that a man should not be removed from his allotment merely because he has ceased to be unemployed, that means that he might go to some place far away where he would not be able to do anything with the allotment. The whole point, however, is that a man should not be turned out of his allotment solely on the ground that he has obtained employment.
A further point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford was with regard to repayments and so forth. It will be remembered that on ordinary-allotments there is a loss, and the Allotments Bill provided that there might
a loss which should be made up out of the rates, but no special provision was made in that Measure that, as soon as a man was getting along nicely with his allotment, it should be possible to come down and tell him that he must pay the whole amount of such loss. If that was not done in the case of a man who was not unemployed, it would be obviously unjust to do it in the case of a man who, ex hypothesi, is worse off.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words:
but if the unemployed person or person not in full-time employment has been provided with seed, fertilisers, or equipment, at a price less than that sufficient to cover the cost of purchase, that person shall be liable to refund to the council or society which provided the aforesaid, a sum sufficient to cover the cost of purchase.
We have just passed a new Clause which provides, very properly, that a man who has obtained employment shall not have to vacate the allotment which was given to him when he was down and out and had no work to do; but no provision of any sort is made in the Clause that such a man in any circumstances, when he does become employed, shall be called upon to make good any of the loss incurred by the taxpayer and the ratepayer in putting him on his allotment. I submit that that is not taking a business point of view, but is an attitude which would encourage people to be thriftless, to think that they can get something for nothing; and I think that some steps should be taken to see that, in suitable cases, some of the money is recoverable from the person for whose benefit the loss has been incurred. The Chancellor of the Duchy remarked that in a former Bill no provision was made for the recovery of any possible loss. That may be so; I do not know; but, if it was so, I think it was wrong.
It will be seen that, while my Amendment is not very drastic, it does give the option to the society which provided the seeds and so on, or to the local authority, to recover at any rate something from the man. I would draw the attention of the House to the word "liable" in the Amendment. Unlike my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount
Wolmer), I do not say that he must repay all the expenditure incurred in supplying him with the allotment and with seeds, fertilisers, equipment, and anything else that may be necessary to make the allotment a paying proposition; but I do say that, where a man has been provided with seeds, fertilisers, and equipment at a price below the cost of purchase, thereby entailing a distinct loss upon the society or local authority, if that society or local authority see him making good money they should be able to say to him that they think he ought to pay some of this money, or all the money; or they may say that they do not want to ask for any of it. I do not think it is right that we should lavishly, and without any thought of public money, endow people who have obtained work with that which they were entitled to get when they were unemployed. [Interruption.] An hon. Member laughs, but, surely, no Member of the House would really suggest that public money should be given to a person and then, when that person was in a position—because he would not be asked to pay unless he was—to give something back to the taxpayer and ratepayers, he should not at any rate be asked to do so.
I do not think that this Amendment is unreasonable. I am not in the least objecting to the new Clause of the right hon. Gentleman. It is perfectly sound and fair. Naturally, we all want to encourage the taking of these allotments, and it would discourage it if, directly a man came into full-time employment, he could be turned out of his allotment. I would, however, ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this Amendment, always keeping in mind the fact that it is not mandatory, that it is not an absolute necessity that the man should be asked for the money. It merely gives to the society or to the local authority, who know all about his case, the option of trying, in appropriate circumstances, to get back some of the money which has been expended.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I should like to support and reinforce the argument of my right hon. and gallant Friend in connection with his Amendment. I would remind the Minister and the House that the particular portion of this Measure with which we are now dealing is one upon which there was common
agreement, not only on the Second Reading but in Committee. It was agreed in all parts of the House that this was one feature of the Bill on which we could get very close together. It is not necessary for me to enforce that argument at any length, or to talk about the work done by the Society of Friends and other organisations in connection with this matter of allotments. It has been realised what an excellent reaction this work has had on the community, and it is also realised that, in the unfortunate conditions of to-day, when large numbers of people are out of work, this is one of the most important fields for making this provision of allotments. The Minister does that in the original Clause of the Bill, and he has extended certain benefits in his proposed new Clause. The point of the Amendment is this. We are agreed that it is a sound expenditure—up to a limit, of course—of public money to make this provision of allotments for those who otherwise would be unable to get the benefit of them—both the direct benefit in the way of foodstuffs and the indirect benefit from the open air healthy life; and, as long as they are in the position of being ruled out on account of lack of income because of lack of employment, we are all at one. But, a new situation arises when the people in whose interests we are passing this new Clause can no longer be classed as unemployed people who are getting no income, and are, therefore, a suitable subject for our consideration and for generous treatment by this House.
The Amendment, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, does not come down like a bank calling in an overdraft; it is a declaration that there is a liability. As long as the man is unemployed, he is a complete beneficiary under the provisions of this Measure, but the moment he moves out of that category—and it is quite easily ascertainable whether he is or is not in employment—he is not necessarily charged with a debt which can be called in in toto or in a given time, but he is placed in a category where there is an admitted liability to the State because of the generosity which the State extended to him during that time in his career when, we admit, he is entitled to it because of his unemployment. We have to recognise the difference of status, and, therefore,
difference of claim on the generosity of the taxpayer and the State, between the man who is entirely unemployed, and who, therefore, whatever his aspirations, is entirely ruled out of any chance of getting an allotment except under the provisions of this Measure, and his completely altered status when he ceases to be unemployed. The Amendment of my right hon. and gallant Friend is so moderate in its terms, and so non-mandatory, if I may use that expression, that I hope that the Minister will appreciate its full meaning and will accept it.

Mr. BLINDELL: I hope that the Minister will not accept this Amendment, because I see a great danger of its defeating the whole object of Clauses 14 and 15 of the Bill, which is to induce these unemployed men to turn their energies to work on the land by taking up allotments, and so help to maintain themselves and their families, instead of remaining idle. Under these two Clauses, as I understand them, the State says to these men, "If you are willing to work and will cultivate a plot of land, we will guarantee to provide you with the land; and, because you are unemployed and cannot cultivate it properly, we, the State, will come to your assistance and provide you with fertilisers, seeds and equipment, probably at a cost less than the actual cost to the society or the local authority." The man says, "Yes, that seems very reasonable; it is a very good inducement to me to turn my energies to work which is going to be remunerative to me and to the State and help my own family;" and then he goes on, always with the dread that, after he has carried on for a year or two, there may come a period when he may be in full-time employment, perhaps at a very low wage, and then the very local authority who have said that they want him to be self-supporting and to cultivate this land in his own interest, giving him every encouragement to do that while he is unemployed, are going, the moment he gets work, to make it most difficult for him to keep it.
It would be better to say to him, "Here is some land, and that is all we are going to give you." If you are going to help him as an unemployed man, for goodness sake do not say, when he gets on to his feet, that you are going to press
him down into the position in which he was before. When these unemployed people become employed, they will, as a result of extended unemployment, have other liabilities that must be met, and this is putting an extra liability upon them at the very moment when they are least able to bear it. I hope that these men will be induced to take land and do work of some value to themselves and to the State, which will enable them to produce food and will help them over this difficult period. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be accepted, because I believe it will defeat the very end that we have in view.

Mr. ATTLEE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is very wise in bringing forward this Amendment. After all, this is something of a social movement. It is a thing in which we want people of good will acting, and the Minister is acting through local councils, private soceties and so forth. What we want is to get a really good move on, and to get the work done. Is it really wise to say to a man whom we want to get into this movement, "We are always going to hold over your head a liability to repayment"? Is it wise to put on the people who are going to work this the very unpleasant and invidious duty of debt collecting, looking into a man's circumstances, and that kind of thing? It is really not wise, and the amount concerned is not very great. As a matter of fact, it is not a thing that is done every time the State comes to the assistance of some part of the industry of the country. There are plenty of instances where large sums have been given but it is not demanded directly the business is succeeding they shall all be paid back. It looks rather mean and niggling to take up this attitude, and it would rather spoil the effect of the good work that is being done by co-operative associations and so forth. Directly you begin to put this legal liability, you put apprehension into the mind of a man, because there are plenty of people who are subject to this sort of liability when they have been kept by the Poor Law. There is also a feeling in local authorities that, because there is a liability, they are bound to get all the money they can. I think on the whole the Amendment will rather spoil
this part of the Bill and I hope it will not be pressed.

Viscount WOLMER: I heard the Minister's reply with the greatest disagreement, although I cannot say I am astonished at the attitude he has adopted, because it is thoroughly in accordance with the attitude of his chief and of the Government, to whom the taxpayers' money appears to be like the widow's cruse, something into which they can dip without ceasing and on every possible occasion. I entirely dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's psychology. I ask him to imagine the actual position on the allotment ground. You have one man who has never been unemployed, or perhaps he had a few days' unemployment before the Act came into force and is now in employment again. Anyhow he has his allotment on the same terms as are open to everyone else up to now and he is expected to pay for what he gets. Next door to him an allotment is given to a man who is unemployed. He is given particularly favourable terms as to rent, and he is also given his equipment, his fertilisers and his seeds, either free of charge or at a very low cost.
In Committee, when some of us expressed doubts as to the amount of expense that was being piled up by the Bill, the Minister, not once but constantly, made this point. "Here you have these hundreds of thousands of men who are unemployed, and who are costing the State untold millions. It is a positive economy to put them on the land and to equip them so that they may be able to produce food." The Minister has supported the Bill on the ground that it was economical, as well as right, for the State to dip deeply into its pockets in order to make a great attempt to put unemployed men on their feet again. But then in the illustration I am drawing the second man gets into employment, and the other men who have their allotments and have had to pay for them, as they never were unemployed, will see their colleague, who has had all these advantages and is now earning good wages, not being called upon to pay a penny piece back to the taxpayer. I think the other allotment holders will feel, rightly, that there is an injustice. This man will be holding his allotment partly at their expense as taxpayers, and they will look down on him and will feel
resentment against the way in which they have been treated. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is also quite wrong in his psychology about the man himself. I believe the unemployed would be only too glad to pay their debts when they were in a position to do so. That is all that the Amendment asks.
My right hon. Friend said he prefers his form of words to mine as being more lenient. I am not in entire agreement with him about that, because I suggest that the man may be asked to repay by instalments. Furthermore, I ask the Minister to draw up, with the sanction of the Treasury, regulations under which these repayments shall be made so that the whole thing shall be put on as easy a basis as possible and that no hardship should occur. No one on this side of the House wants to force these men to pay the money back before they are in a position to do so and, after a man has been a long time out of employment, he has many debts of an onerous character which he will be expected to repay. All that we ask is that what he has obtained at the expense of his fellow taxpayers shall be regarded pari passu with these other debts. By all means allow him full and reasonable time in which to make repayment but to say that, because a man was once unemployed and has, therefore, got this allotment and receives fertilisers and equipment, under specially favourable terms, no matter how prosperous he may subsequently become, he shall never be called upon to repay any of the money, appears to me to be not only gross mismanagement and bad guardianship of the public purse, but is also an insult to the man himself.
I was very sorry to hear opposition to the Amendment from the Liberal benches. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Runciman) is not in his place, because he has preached to us the necessity for economy, and economy can only be brought about by safeguarding points like this. The spendthrift always says there are only a few thousand pounds here and a few there. That is how the Government have succeeded in adding millions to their first Budget and are going to add a great many more to their second. There is no sort of justification for saying that men who are in good work, who have been able to pay
back their other debts, who have received large grants from their fellow taxpayers, should not be called upon in due time to repay money which they are in full position to repay.

Mr. PALIN: It is obvious that hon. Members who are supporting the Amendment have very little unemployment in their constituencies or they would not have put down such an ungenerous and pettifogging proposal as this. I represent a constituency where unemployment has been rife since 1918. The great armament firm of Armstrong Whitworth is in my constituency, and there are men there who have not had all opportunity of work since that firm practically closed down after the Armistice, nor are they likely to find work unless we can get them into the position into which this Bill proposes to put them of being able to recondition themselves, and provide some food for their families. Many of these people own their own houses. They have mortgaged and mortgaged and the mortgages have been foreclosed. Unemployment allowance went long ago. The furniture has gone. There is no money for clothing and they are almost naked.
The point of view I would put before the House is that they are suffering from a long continued and noxious disease. It is necessary that they should be restored, both physically, morally and spiritually, and are we going to refuse a grant such as this, £1 or £2, to supply the wherewithal? Immediately a man gets into work all his debtors will come down upon him, and I trust the Minister will not under any circumstances allow an obstacle to be placed in the way of a large number of these people, who have been out of work for 10 or 12 years, to avail themselves of this beneficent Measure, because a man who has already piled up by long continued unemployment a large amount of liability will think twice before he incurs a liability even so small as this will involve. The Noble Lord says he does not want unduly to press such a person. He would have to wait a very long time before most of them would be in a position to meet this liability. Therefore, I feel that it would be imposing upon the local authority or the voluntary organisation book-keeping, inquiries and form filling up which would entail administrative ex-
penditure and would far outweigh any sum that could be recovered, and would undoubtedly do untold damage in the large number it frightened off from applying for such benefit as the Act confers. I trust the Amendment will be rejected.

Captain BRISCOE: I hope very much that my right hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment. It is true that my Noble Friend spoke a great deal about economy, but we have already accepted the principle that certain sums of money are to be given for the encouragement of allotments. It is now our job to see that that money is given in the fairest possible way, and, though there may be inconsistencies at the moment, they will not be put right by creating a yet further inconsistency. You will create a position, if this Amendment be passed, in which a man who gets on very well will be made to pay a certain charge and the man, his next-door neighbour, who has not done so well, will not have to pay that charge, and naturally that will create a very great deal of irritation among the men.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is not that the same all through life? The man who has money has to pay his debts; the man who has not any money cannot pay his debts.

Captain BRISCOE: I must remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that the Minister is right in thinking that this Amendment is creating an inconsistency and a very irritating one. Honestly, I do not think the Amendment is really worth while passing, and I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw it. It has already been pointed out that it is going to entail a good deal of further expense to societies by the keeping of books, and it seems to me that it will be of no use if it leads to irritation and further misunderstandings.

Mr. TINKER: I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn. I come from a constituency where many of the unemployed men have taken to the smallholding business and have been working for the welfare of the nation. If this Amendment is carried, it will damp the ardour of those men, who later on may otherwise probably get work if they start with the idea that if they get work they will have to pay back all that they get from
the Government under this Measure. They will say: "What is the use of doing anything? I am hoping to do something for the country, but, if I have to pay back the cost of these things after I get work, I cannot take on the proposal." I resent the Noble Lord's statement that he have no regard for economy. In other words, he said that we prefer to give away the taxpayers' money. I hope that he does not mean anything of the kind. What justification has he for saying it? Is it because we are attempting to do something for the unemployed? Are we, therefore, guilty of throwing away the taxpayers' money? It is not a fair charge, and I resent it very much.
Another point which was made was that some will get benefits, which others who have been unemployed and have since got work will not have an opportunity of obtaining. Does not that sort of thing happen under every Act of Parliament? Take the Workmen's Compensation Act. Before it came into operation hundreds of workmen received injuries but compensation dated only from the time the Act was passed. I can assure the Noble Lord that the people in my constituency who are in work will not resent the unemployed having a chance to recover themselves. I trust that the Noble Lord will take the advice of one of his hon. Friends behind him, and, in view of the arguments which have been put forward, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Amendment. I do not want to repeat the arguments against it which have been given by others, but I should like to point out that these seeds will be given during the time that a man is in distress. The benefits he will receive will be limited to that time also. He will only get benefit for one year, and there is no guarantee that he will get any benefit at all. If he uses the seeds and cultivates his holding, and then, unfortunately, fails to obtain good crops, he will not receive much benefit at all. There is no limitation in the Amendment as to the period for which a man should be liable. Unfortunately, we know that many men are unemployed for very long periods, and it is possible that a man might not only be called upon to refund the cost of seeds for one season but for a succession of seasons, and that
would be very unfair. An allotment cannot be looked upon as being the income of a man. It is always an accessory to income, if he has one. It would be unwise for us to enact anything which would enable a charge to be made upon such a man from season to season. Some mention has been made of the cost and of economy, but I do not think that the amount of money involved in this proposal will be very great in comparison with the enormous cost which the Bill as a whole is going to entail. The cost of collection would probably be far more than the amount that would be recovered. I do not think that there is anything that can be said for the Amendment on the ground of economy, and I appeal to my right hon. and gallant Friend not to press the Amendment, but to withdraw it.

Major GLYN: I hope that the Noble Lord and my right hon. and gallant Friend will not press the. Amendment. We are rather inclined to lose sight of the wood for the trees, and it seems to be a pin-pricking Amendment, and one which will do very little good. Judging from the facts in my constituency, we ought to help men to get on to the land and to occupy their time in a useful way. I am sure that if I went to them and said, "You can have your allotment and your seeds, but if you do well there is going to be a day of reckoning, and you will have to fork out some money in order to repay the cost of seeds and equipment," they would reply, "We thought there was a snag somewhere, and we will not touch it." The Amendment would have the effect of discouraging men from cultivating allotments, and I do not think the Amendment is worth while. There is another thing of great importance. The previous Allotment Acts, as far as I know, contained no provision of this sort. Allotment societies have grown up in this country, and they look after the allotments very well indeed. There is a very good public spirit in these societies, and it will be a serious mistake if we do not rely upon that public spirit. If we put these pettifogging, pin-pricking, annoying little things into an otherwise good Clause of the Bill we shall probably destroy the whole of its advantage through trying to be a little too clever, I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend who moved
the Amendment did so with the very best of intentions and for the purpose of economy, but I do not think that this is a very good way in which to exercise economy. These allotments are not large estates, and in view of the comparatively small cost of seeds and a certain amount of equipment, I am convinced that the book-keeping that would be necessary would cost an infinitely greater sum than the actual cost of these things. While I am sure that my right hon. and gallant Friend brought forward the Amendment in the best interests of the taxpayers, and that he believed that it was not going to be detrimental to the unemployed, I am afraid that the provision in the Bill would not be so beneficial if the Amendment were accepted. I trust that my right hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw the Amendment. If he goes into the Division Lobby I certainly cannot vote for him.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I hope that the Noble Lord does not think that the Amendment which he supports is worthy of him. If the seeds are ripe, the fertilisers which have been brought to bear upon them to make them spring to fruition are certainly all wrong, if we are to judge from the speeches which we have heard. You may spend money trying to collect these sums which you may save if the Amendment becomes law. I hope that the Noble Lord, seeing that the seed has fallen upon unproductive soil, or at least received the wrong kind of fertiliser, will bury his dead.

Viscount CRANBORNE: I hope, like many other speakers from this side of the House, that my right hon. Friends will see their way to withdraw the Amendment. The object is that all allotment holders should be treated alike, and it has been argued that employed allotment holders would be penalised by money being given to unemployed allotment holders. The unemployed allotment holder is not in the same position as the employed man. It is as if there is a race and the unemployed man has started with a handicap. At the end of the race, or at the end of a given time, they must be level to the extent of the benefit which has been given. This would merely penalise the unemployed, and it is the last thing that we should wish to do. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I do not intend that the Noble Lord should go out of the House thinking that he is the only economist in it. I rise strongly to support the Amendment. The argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) was that this Bill is going to cost so very much that it is not worth while saving a little. The country has cost a very great deal and it is worth while saving every possible penny. If it will cost more to collect this money than the amount which we are going to receive, and the right hon. Gentleman will say that, I am sure we shall be satisfied, but I dissent strongly from what has been said on the apposite side that this is an ungenerous Amendment. It is impossible to be generous or ungenerous with other people's money. You can spend other people's money wisely and you can spend it stupidly, but generosity is an entirely wrong term to use. I hope that the Amendment will be considered on its merits. If a man is partly unemployed, he may possibly be earning more than a man who is in full employment next door to him. The man in full employment on a small wage cannot get help, and the man who is partly employed can get it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether an economy can be made, and if it is possible to economise, I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will proceed to a Division.

Colonel ASHLEY: I think that we have had an interesting discussion on the Amendment. I do not think the House has shown itself to be very keen on economy. As my Noble Friend and myself seem to be the only advocates of economy, and, as it seems to be expressing the wish of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next new Clause standing in the name of the Minister—(Power to arrange for management by local authorities of smallholdings and allotments provided by Minister or for the transfer thereof to such authorities)—would, if it were added to the Bill, impose an increased charge on the rates. This he cannot do on the Report stage, so if the Minister desires that it should be added to the Bill, it will have to be recommitted.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): On that point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear to the Opposition that we propose to re-commit the Bill in order to have this Clause incorporated. I thought that, perhaps, it would be convenient if that information were given at this stage.

Mr. SPEAKER: The new Clauses (Application of section 8 of Allotments Act, 1925) and (Transfer of smallholding to council of county or county borough)—are, I think, partly or wholly covered by Amendments to the new Clause of the Minister.

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of Agricultural Land Corporation.)

5.0 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "Minister," to the second word "with," in line 11.
This Amendment is one of a series of Amendments which we are bringing forward with the object of ensuring that this portion of the Bill shall not apply to the case of Scotland. This portion of the Bill was discussed rather perfunctorily on the Second Reading, and it was agreed that it would be better that it should be gone into at some length on the Committee stage. In the Committee stage, not merely the hon. and right hon. Members with whom I had the honour to act showed themselves very doubtful about the wisdom of the proposals, but there 5.0 p.m. were serious objections raised by the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott), speaking, I suppose, in the name of his colleagues on the Liberal benches. The Liberal benches showed themselves also very dubious as to the wisdom of the proposal, and the hon. Member for Kincardine, when the Bill was under discussion and after he had had the benefit of the explanation by the Secretary of State, went so far as to say:
Neither in the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland nor the Under-Secretary have we had any justification or sufficient information to induce this Committee to grant the powers in this Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 25th November, 1930; col. 29.]
He went further, and criticised the authorities which had been quoted. The
Minister, it is true, quoted the Selborne Committee, with which, so far as I remember, he had made great play on the Second Reading, going so far as to suggest that Stalin in Russia was really a humble disciple of the Noble Lord and had been induced to embark upon the recent remarkable agricultural developments in Russia by reading the report of this Committee, which was issued in 1918. That was the most recent authority which the Minister quoted, save for an opinion given by Sir Daniel Hall. The Selborne Committee was concerned with conditions in the Eastern counties of England, and Sir Daniel Hall was technical adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture in England. The proposals which Sir Daniel Hall brought forward have been put forth at greater length, I think, by Professor Orwin, whose opinion on these matters we must all treat with the greatest respect. But Professor Orwin was also discussing English conditions, and conditions in a very specialised part of England, namely the Eastern counties. The matter was examined by Mr. Joseph Duncan, who explained that the inevitable and indeed the desired result of these changes was to reduce the number of people employed upon the land.

Mr. PALIN: Is the hon. and gallant Member up-to-date? Has he read Mr. Joseph Duncan's contribution in the last week's issue of "Forward"?

Major ELLIOT: I am not merely an occasional, but a constant reader of that journal, and more particularly of the opinions of Mr. Joseph Duncan, from whom I have drawn spiritual sustenance, especially on the question of smallholdings, of which he is a convinced and consistent opponent. Mr. Joseph Duncan said, with the utmost astonishment, "Why should anyone trump up any indignation against the proposal to take people off the land? Of course," he said, "this will take people off the land. That is its inevitable result, and it is most astonishing that the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) was able to generate indignation at this proposal." He said further some flattering or unflattering things about myself and that the real Tory opinion was expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), who pointed out that this was the
mechanisation of rural England, "which," he said, "we hate," and Mr. Joseph Duncan himself expressed the greatest sympathy with that view and hoped that this period of mechanisation would be a temporary stage of rural development, because, he said, he hated the idea as much as did the right hon. Member for Stafford. But he did not deny—indeed, he emphasised and stressed—that it was necessary to adopt this process to reduce the number of men on the land.
That was not the argument which was brought forward either by the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State in defending this proposal. They themselves spent a long time explaining that it would increase the number of men on the land. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary of State both made that point. The Secretary of State—and this was the justification which he gave the Committee for asking for those powers—said:
If large-scale farming is engaged in, it will not, in my opinion, mean that less men will be employed on the land, but that more will be employed. It will mean the employment of more men on the land itself, and, in addition, the provision of a large number of mechanical implements will mean increased employment in other directions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 25th November, 1930; col. 16.]
And only last week, in the official Government paper in Scotland, that view was entirely thrown over by Mr. Joseph Duncan, who said he could not conceive of anybody not realising the fact that the object and intention of these proposals was in fact to diminish the number of people employed on the land in Scotland, and that unless this diminution took place, a reduction in the standard of living of those employed on the land would certainly follow. The Secretary of State, I take it, now abandons the defence which he made of this proposal in Committee, that it would mean employment for more men on the land, and stands on the view expressed by his technical advisers that it involves the employment of fewer men on the land. That is the first contention which we wish to establish with regard to Scotland.
Our second contention is that this Clause has been brought forward as a result of committees considering a problem peculiar to certain areas of England, namely, the purely cereal-grow-
ing areas, the light lands of Eastern England, which are unsuitable for other crops and on which it is desired to erect in this experiment a sort of synthetic prairie, upon which large-scale ranch farming may be carried out. That may be a very good thing and a very necessary thing, but in Scotland there are many other ways in which intelligence, administrative skill, and cash may be employed than in producing synthetic prairies in one or other corner of our land. It is, indeed, a new accusation to bring against Scottish agriculture that there are not enough large farms in Scotland. We have had the contention mostly from the benches opposite that there were too many large farms, that the process of sheep ranching had been carried too far, and that it was desirable to reverse this process. In addition to the sheep ranches which have been set up in portions of Scotland, it is proposed that grain ranches should be set up in the Lowlands of Scotland, but we need more experience and a great deal more recommendation from committees examining specifically Scottish problems before we can give our assent to such a proposition.
The Under-Secretary of State made great play with the proposal that this might possibly injure Scotland and said that this was a chance which it would be most injudicious to let slip. He said, "You propose to debar this corporation from making experiments in Scotland. Do not tie its hands. Leave it free, and let it experiment, either in Scotland or in England. It may be that it will not carry out experiments in Scotland, but merely in England, and it may be that the fears which you bring forward will not eventuate." That is the very reason we desire to see this experiment specifically limited to England, so that we may not be asked to find the cash for this proposal, which will be entirely carried out south of the border and from which we shall derive neither the experience nor the financial advantage.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Surely the hon. and gallant Member is not going to contend that the climatic conditions and the soil of England are the same as those of Scotland. Our climatic conditions and soil require a different method of approach, and therefore it is essential that we
should have the power to experiment in Scotland just as the power is to be given to experiment in England.

Major ELLIOT: That is precisely the proposal which I was making. It would be all very well if there were no administrative machinery in Scotland through which any such experiments could be carried out, and if there were no arrangements by which supervision could be carried out or by which investigations and questions could be applied in this House, but the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will agree that we have ourselves a Department of Agriculture in Scotland, which is acquainted with Scottish conditions, with our climatic conditions, with our soil conditions, and which has not to cover the same wide expanse as the Ministry of Agriculture in England and can apply itself more specifically to the problems of Scotland. Let us take Scotland out of this Bill, then let us ask for our 11/80ths of the corresponding sum for England, and let us put the money to the credit of the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund, and let the Department in Scotland carry out experiments suited to the peculiar needs of our soil and our climate, which it can most easily do.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is what is going to be done.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member has not had the advantage of the continuous examination of the Bill in Committee, which brought out clearly that this corporation is to be a United Kingdom corporation, that it will sit in London, and that its members will be English. We did our utmost to secure that there should be a sub-committee appointed for Scotland, but that was refused. We did our utmost to secure that it should consult the Scottish Department of Agriculture before taking action, but that also was refused. Surely it will take time enough to develop and consider the enormous problems involved in the creation of large-scale farms in one part of the country alone, and to deal with one set of problems alone—the problem of intensive or extensive, if you like, cereal cultivation by means of a mechanised agriculture! Heavens above, there is enough work for a corporation in that!
The Under-Secretary of State said, "But that is not the only kind of large-
scale farming that is possible. There is large-scale poultry farming." He brought forward the case of the Corstorphine farm near Edinburgh, and he said we could investigate that and that we might experiment with that branch of farming. He gave an entrancing picture of the birds in that farms, housed under beautiful conditions, with photographs to show how happy they were, and everything, even to the plucking of them, done by mechanical means. But does he really conceive that a corporation which is intensively engaged in solving the problem of the depressed areas of wheat land is really going to double and treble its work by butting into the production of poultry, which is already a somewhat remunerative business? Surely it will have its work cut out to deal with the questions involved in the light soils of the East of England, which are undergoing a period of depression which is absolutely unparalleled in their history; and I can imagine what the farmers of Norfolk will say if they realise that a considerable portion of the funds of the only experiment which the present Government have brought forward for their immediate future is to be taken away and devoted to experimenting on a poultry farm with the plucking of feathers and so on.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Go and see that farm.

Major ELLIOT: I am interested enough in that farm, as I know the hon. Member himself is. He has knowledge on this subject, because his own son is engaged in a poultry holding and is naturally, as one would expect from his distinguished sire, engaged in a hard and not unsuccessful struggle. Indeed, I can imagine that he will not be too pleased to find that this House is voting money by which a huge Ford plant can be set up alongside of him, at the taxpayers' expense, at his expense, to compete with him in the poultry farming. I leave the hon. Member to discuss that matter with his son. I do not believe that this Corporation will be able to indulge in these experiments. It will have enough to do with the problems that are brought forward, and those problems are not Scottish problems but English problems, and refer specifically to a particular part of England. We in Scotland desire, in the first place, that Scotland should be taken cut
of this large scale farming Corporation experiment, secondly, that we should have eleven-eightieths of any sums expended by the English Corporation, and, thirdly, that the money should be devoted to experiments of a kind which will he serviceable to Scotland of which large scale farming is not the first or the most immediate demand. There has been no demand in Scotland for this part of the Bill. The authorities which have been quoted are English authorities and the demand which has been made is an English demand. Scottish agricultural authorities, or many of them, are opposed to these proposals. The only arguments which the Secretary of State has brought forward have been controverted by the journal which was once edited by the Under-Secretary of State himself. In Standing Committee the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) said:
Neither in the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland nor of the Under-Secretary have we had any justification or sufficient information to induce the Committee to grant the powers proposed in this Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee, B), 25th November, 1930; col. 29.]
After that statement no further answer was made by the Minister, except to get up and to move: "That the question he now put." The question was put and carried against us in Committee. I have no reason to suppose that the House will show itself less difficult to satisfy than the Committee. We have already had one reversal of the arguments which proved unsatisfactory and unconvincing to the Committee. We appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober. We appeal from the question-putting Minister to the good sense of the House as a whole. We appeal from the depleted ranks of the party below the Gangway on this side in Committee to their more generous representation on the Floor of the House and, finally, we appeal to Scottish Members in all parts of the House to let us run our own show in our own way—

Mr. WESTWOOD: As you did on the Local Government Act.

Major ELLIOT: As we did with the Local Government Act, which we carried on Third Reading by a clear majority of Scottish Members in this House, and which entrusted Scottish affairs to Scottish hands. We appeal not to be put under a Whitehall Corporation, without our being allowed to have a Scottish
body for the purpose, and after a specific refusal to consult Scottish agriculture upon the subject. On these grounds we appeal to be left out and that other proposals more suitable to Scotland should be introduced.

Major COLVILLE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: rose—

Viscount WOLMER: My hon. and gallant Friend rose to second the Amendment.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): I asked for a Seconder, and I understood that it was formally seconded. I understood the hon. and gallant Member to say, formally: "I beg to second." If the hon. and gallant Member desires to speak on the Amendment, he may do so.

Major COLVILLE: I said "I beg to second," and I was proceeding to make my remarks. I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment, because during the administration of the last Government there was a very frequent cry from members of the Socialist party in Scotland that Scotland was being dragged at the coat tails of England. If ever a Bill was designed with the map of England all over it rather than the map of Scotland, this Bill has been designed in that way. The Department realises that large scale farming is not a design suitable to Scotland. Our system of land tenure in Scotland is different from the system in England. In some ways I believe it is a better system and that it gives a better security to the good tenant than the English system. This difficulty was visualised quite clearly by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on the Second Reading of the Bill when he said, referring to large scale farming and the acquisition of land for that purpose:
We shall find it exceptionally difficult to do in Scotland owing to our leasehold system. We shall find it difficult to get a big area where all the farms will fall into one, and we should have to pay very heavy compensation in order to get rid of leases and have fixity of tenure. Be that as it may, all that this Bill says is 'Let us try it'" [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1930; col. 2005, Vol. 244.]
What he seems to say, in effect, is that it is a difficult problem and a very costly one, that it is possibly impracticable, but,
nevertheless, let us try. If that is the way that the Socialist party carries out its legislation, no wonder that our bill as taxpayers continues to rise. It is not in the interests of Scotland that money should be devoted to this purpose in the hands of a United Kingdom Corporation, without knowledge or close application to agricultural affairs in Scotland, but having before them rather the interests of English conditions. That they should have money placed in their hands to play with in this way and in a way which we think is against the real interests of Scottish agriculture is not fair. It is perfectly fair to say that whatever may be the view in Scotland in regard to the smallholding question and the allotment question—and here I think there is scope for development—there is absolutely no demand in Scotland for the introduction of these large scale farms. How many Members of the Socialist party fought the election on a promise to give Scotland large scale farming? We know that there is no demand for any such thing. Why then spend public money on such wasteful experiments? I hold strong views and am very sceptical about the value of State trading and State bargaining. We have heard of the fowls at the farm near Edinburgh being plucked, but it will be the ratepayers and taxpayers of Scotland who will be plucked by experiments of this kind.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) should ask that we should except Scotland from Clause 1 of this Bill, but I am surprised at the arguments which he has used in support of his Amendment. If there is one well-deserved step in the hon. and gallant Member's ladder of reputation it is that he takes a keen interest in scientific research in everything that promotes a better and more efficient agriculture. He has a spirit of adventure and pioneering in his makeup, but this afternoon he has exhibited political tenets which I regret should have been advanced by him. He says that he desires that Scotland should be excluded from the Bill, but he spent time in Committee fighting to get for Scotland her eleven-eightieths of the expenditure. He says that the money should be spent in other
directions and not in large scale, mechanised or scientific farming, which he says is bad. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sovieteering!"] Mechanised farming need not be Socialistic or State farming. What has happened is this, that the various authorities—I am not one and do not pretend to be one—for the last 10 or 12 years have declared it to be vital that there should be conducted considerable experiments in mechanised farming, that is, large scale farming. We get a Royal Commission making that recommendation. So far from being Sovieteers, there were three Conservative Ministers on that Commission. I speak from memory, but I think Lord Selborne was the chairman. There were two Conservative ex-Ministers of Agriculture on the Committee, and there was not, so far as I remember, a Labour representative on it. That Commission unanimously reported that there should be experiments in large scale farming. They said that the proposals should be regarded as a whole.
So far from this being some new adventure in agriculture, some new experiment which the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of state for Scotland have conceived since the General Election, skilled agricultural opinion for 10 or 12 years has recommended that such an experiment should be made. The scientific advisers of the Ministry of Agriculture, men like Sir Daniel Hall, have recommended it. Then there are Sir Archibald Weigall and Mr. Castrell Wrey, who published a pamphlet entitled "A Large State Farm" who recommend that a State farm of 10,000 acres should be set up. Professor Orwin makes his recommendation. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove said that we have no recent recommendations on the subject. I do not know whether he would regard a recommendation of the agricultural correspondent of the London "Times" in an article on 29th December, 1930, as recent. After he had had the benefit of reading the proceedings in Committee and the criticisms for and against, the agricultural correspondent of the "Times" sets out at considerable length arguments why there should be an expenditure on large scale farming.

Major ELLIOT: That buttresses my contention. Let the Under-Secretary quote the agricultural correspondent of the "Scotsman" or the "Glasgow Herald."

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am dealing with the point that this is not merely a wild adventure but that there is a prima facie case so far as agricultural opinion is concerned for an experiment that might be called mechanised or large-scale farming. The Amendment is not against large-scale farming, although most of the arguments were; it is simply that Scotland should be excluded from the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, with his scientific experience, adopted a most curious attitude. His first argument for excluding Scotland from the Bill was because the weight of Liberal opinion on the Committee was against it. He quoted the case of the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott), but he did not tell us that the other four or five Liberal Members on the Committe voted in favour of the Government. Let us have the whole facts. I agree that it would not have looked well for the hon. and gallant Member to say that out of five Liberal Members of the Committee only one, a Scottish Liberal, voted against the Clause and that he could not convince his Liberal colleagues. His next argument was that if you have mechanised farms you inevitably get a diminution in employment on the land. I do not know whether that is true or not, but I have read what Mr. Joseph Duncan has said on this matter and other authorities who agree with him, and I know on the other hand that certain experience in large scale farming has produced an entirely opposite result. I have in my hand a statement sent to us by a gentleman who runs a large scale farm. I have not permission to give his name, but I can show the hon. and gallant Member the figures—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The question of large-scale farming is one which will be raised on a later Amendment, and I cannot allow two general discussions on the same subject. This discussion should be confined to the reasons why Scotland should be excluded from the Clause, and a general discussion on large-scale farming should take place on the later Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am entirely in your hands, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it is exceedingly difficult to meet the argument that Scotland should be excluded unless we can show reasons why it will benefit Scotland to participate.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not wish to exclude any argument which applies to the case. I desire to remind the House that the general question of large-scale farming arises on an Amendment to be called later, and we do not want to have two general discussions on that topic.

Mr. PALIN: The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) traversed the whole ground with regard to large-scale farming.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I will endeavour to fall in with your Ruling, and perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have an opportunity later on of meeting that particular point. In regard to the question of the amount of unemployment that may be created as a result of any large-scale farming operations, there are certain recent experiences which do not seem to bear out that view. There is one case in Lincolnshire where the permanent labour has increased 34 per cent. and the casual labour by 80 per cent.; and while the wages paid on ordinary farms are 32s. per week, in this mechanised farm they are up to 43s. 2d. per week.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the Under-Secretary indicate the farm or the district?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I will indicate the district, as I have not permission to disclose the name.

Major COLVILLE: It is a privately owned farm?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHSON: Can the Under-Secretary say how many men per 100 acres are employed on a mechanised farm as against an ordinary farm?

Mr. JOHNSTON: In this particular case in Lincolnshire, so far from employment having decreased as a result of mechanised farming, it has increased.

Captain BRISCOE: Can the Under-Secretary tell us how many men are actually employed per 100 acres on that farm?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May we have some idea of the total acreage of this large-scale farm?

Mr. JOHNSTON: if I gave all those particulars I am afraid that I should be disclosing more information than I ought to disclose. Let me say that the estate comprises what were formerly some 26 small farms, and the result has been, as far as our information goes, that permanent labour has increased by 34 per cent, and casual labour by 80 per cent. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove made a somewhat surprising claim with regard to the mechanisation methods used in the case of the Costorphine poultry farm. I confess that I do not see anything very remarkable in using machinery in the case of birds which have to be sent to market, and which are actually plucked by machinery. I do not see anything funny about that, and I do not believe that the hon. and gallant Member really considers that there is anything funny about it, except that it seemed to him something by which he could tickle the risible faculties of hon. Members behind him. Anything new strikes them as being funny. What are the facts in regard to this matter? There is one illustration in Scotland of a large farm experiment which has been conducted with success.
I am sure hon. Members opposite know something about the corporation which is operating near Edinburgh. What has that corporation done? They run a farm where there are six and a half miles of tar macadam roads, and upon which there are hundreds of thousands of birds. They are running this farm by the most up-to-date methods, and the result is that there is no diminution of employment on that estate, but that employment has gone up by about 400 per cent. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many acres?"] It does not matter a bit whether the concern has 250 or 2,000 acres as a large-scale farm so long as it is a large enough unit to produce a commodity on a large scale. Large-scale farming does not necessarily mean a large acreage, it
means a large production. The hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian (Major Colville) said that we should have considerable difficulty in applying large-scale farming to Scotland because of our leasehold system, the leases falling in at different times making it difficult for the corporation to acquire a sufficiently large area. That is quite true, and there is no sense in hiding what is the fact. We have carefully considered the matter but we do not think it is desirable that Scotland should be excluded from any share in experiments for example in fruit growing, in raspberry growing, and in the processes which result therefrom, or that Scotland should be excluded from experiments in poultry farming, and many other operations where large corporations might seek to develop the interests of agriculture in Scotland by experiment.
If we exclude Scotland from the provisions of the Bill the money will be spent in England, and I cannot conceive how an Amendment of this nature can possibly do Scottish agriculture any good. Even if you have experiments in England it does not follow that the same experiments can be applied to Scotland, where there are differences in soil and climate. To confine the experiments that are to be made under this Bill to England will not benefit Scottish agriculture, and the Government propose to resist the Amendment and leave the Corporation free as occasion arises to apply the benefits of the expenditure under this Bill to the development of Scottish agriculture.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: The Under-Secretary of State seems to have failed altogether to meet the principal criticism which has been made against the Government in including Scotland in this Clause. He has shown no reasons why Scotland should be brought under the control of an English Corporation. [Interruption]. In the representation on this Corporation there will be an overwhelming majority of those who do not represent Scotland and who do not understand its conditions. It has been admitted that conditions in Scotland are very different indeed from those in England. The Under-Secretary recognises that fact. He personally is of opinion that it will not be possible to apply the system of large-scale farming to Scotland under the leasehold
system. He knowns perfectly well that the conditions with regard to soil and climate in Scotland are utterly different from those which will have to be dealt with in England. At the same time he is prepared to justify leaving Scottish agriculture at the mercy of a Corporation which will be in no sense Scottish and will not be in a position to appreciate the needs of Scotland. In Scotland, agriculture is dealt with by a Scottish Department of Agriculture which has its own opportunities of collecting Scottish information and giving effect to Scottish views.
It is very surprising that a Labour Government which is supposed to be always in favour of Scottish Home Rule and of giving the Scottish people an opportunity of controlling their own affairs, should be prepared to justify a Clause which will place the Scottish people at the mercy of a Corporation on which they will not have a majority. We are not afraid of experiment or research in Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) indicated clearly in his speech that there is no desire whatever to prevent any experiment being carried out, but what we do say is that experiments can be made and are being made already. One might refer to the case of the poultry farm at Corstorphine. That is a, private enterprise. Experiments are being made and are being encouraged by the Department of Agriculture, which is the proper Department to deal with these matters. It would be far better for Scotland to have the money to deal with its own needs, the money to be applied under a department which is in touch with Scottish agriculturists.
It is rather peculiar that the Under-Secretary, when quoting figures with regard to employment in large scale farming, has had to go to England, where the conditions are different. This is going to be an absolutely dead letter as far as Scotland is concerned. I am sure that I express a very considerable volume of opinion in Scotland in saying that there is no desire whatever for a scheme of this kind, and that the Scottish nation will resent very bitterly the proposal that Scotland shall have no separate say in a matter of this importance, but will have to take its place as
one of many on an English board, which will have an overwhelming English majority to deal with matters from an English standpoint. I have fought on many occasions for the separate representation of Scotland on matters on which she is entitled to separate representation. The principle of this Amendment has not even been discussed by the Under-Secretary. He has completely ignored the main point against this Clause of the Bill, and I am certain that he will find Scottish opinion strongly opposed to him.

Mr. ALPASS: I think there is some misunderstanding with regard to the application of this particular Clause. There will be no compulsion on the Corporation to carry out any experiments in Scotland, for the Bill is purely permissive. I am rather a young member of the Forestry Commission, but I think that the constitution of that Commission affords a very useful analogy for the Corporation which this Bill sets up. The Forestry Commission is a Commission to carry out certain afforestation work for Great Britain. There are nine members, and, as it happens, the chairman of the Commission is a Scotsman, and a very able chairman he is. There is another member of the Commission who is a Scotsman. I have not had a very long experience of the operations of the Commission, but my experience has been sufficiently long for me to know that the interests of Scotland are not overlooked when it comes to a question of afforesting any part of Scotland. I suggest that that is exactly how this Clause would operate. There is no reason at all why a majority of members of the Corporation should not be Scotsmen. I will guarantee that there will be some Scotsmen on it. If there were not there would be a row in this House. In the work of the Forestry Commission the interests of Scotland are not overlooked, and I suggest to hon. Members opposite who desire to exclude Scotland from the operation of this Clause that they are trying to do something detrimental to the interests of their country.

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The suggestion of the last speaker offers very little comfort to Scottish agriculture, for it means
that Scotland will be taxed for the purpose of this corporation, and the corporation need not carry out any experiment whatever in Scotland. That will be cold comfort to the taxpayers of Scotland. We have heard from both sides about the successful poultry farm near Edinburgh, about the feathers being carried along conveyer belts and of the fowls being plucked by machinery. The whole point of the Amendment is that we desire to prevent something of that sort happening under this Bill, namely, the plucking of the Scottish taxpayer and his feathers being taken away by a conveyer operating from London. The position which has given rise to this Amendment has not been dealt with in any way by the Government spokesman. It is of no avail to try to prove that large-scale farming would be a success in Scotland by quoting the agricultural correspondent of an English newspaper, or referring to an experience in Lincolnshire. Our whole case is that the conditions in Scotland are so diverse and different that any money available for experiment ought to be allotted to Scotland and controlled by a Scottish corporation for the benefit of Scottish agriculture.
Let me illustrate how great these diversities are by referring to the part of Scotland from which I come and with which I am most familiar, namely, the Hebrides. Consider what the conditions are there. How can the experience of Lincolnshire prove any guide whatever? In the Hebrides you have a string of islands, well out from the mainland, confronted with problems of transport and markets which are entirely different from those on the mainland, and you have also a type of farming which makes it impossible that large-scale experiments can ever be the least use there at all. You have little crofts in pockets on the hillside, the land all lakes and the sea all islands. You have no continuous stretch of either land or water of sufficient dimensions to make a large-scale farm of any description. Apart from the physical configuration of the land, one has to remember the type of farming which is there ancestral and traditional, namely, the croft. A croft consists of a small patch of cultivable soil, backed by a large common grazing on the hillside. If we had this English corporation with power to conduct large-scale farming operations
in Scotland, where could they get the land for the large-scale farms except by trenching on the common grazing which is an essential part of the crofter's existence? It would be a great mistake to subject the whole of the crofting population of the Highlands of Scotland to the risk of having this common element in their agricultural operations, the common grazing, put in jeopardy by the operations of some zealous but ignorant commissioner in London, who knows nothing about the peculiar conditions in the Hebrides.

Mr. McKINLAY: How about St. Kilda?

Mr. MORRISON: The hon. Member asks about St. Kilda. He would agree that it would be very hard to get a farm on the scale of a pocket handkerchief in those inaccessible islands.

Mr. McKINLAY: A Rolls-Royce is no use in St. Kilda; therefore have no Rolls-Royces. That is the effect of the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. MORRISON: If you cannot have Rolls-Royces in St. Kilda, do not tax the people of Scotland for the purpose of giving power to an English Corporation to inflict Rolls-Royces on St. Kilda. I am obliged to the hon. Member for having brought out more clearly than my halting tongue could have done the exact point to which we object in this Bill. This great new expensive thing on which the Government propose to embark may be or some use in Lincolnshire, where the Rolls-Royce can run along smooth and even roads, and where large-scale farming may be successful, but it is absolutely useless in Scotland. The hon. Member would find a large-scale farm in the Hebrides about as much use as a Rolls-Royce in St. Kilda. We do not see why it should be laid down by the Bill that a United Kingdom Corporation should have power to spend the taxpayers' money on an experiment which must prove uneconomic and detrimental to the interests of agriculture in these parts of Scotland.
6.0 p.m.
We have heard it said that this Corporation will be able to conduct experiments that will benefit all sorts of agriculture. A corporation of super-men would not provide the type of knowledge required to conduct experiments of the
diversity required. There is the problem of the crofter. He is not only a crofter, but a fisherman. The problem there is not the conduct of large-scale farms, but to give the man a chance, by improving his transport arrangements, to eke out a livelihood, as his ancestors have done, from a combination of work upon sea and land. If we had the money in the hands of a Scottish corporation and if that corporation were manned entirely by Scotsmen familiar with the problem, we could do for agriculture a great deal that we cannot do under this Bill. Unless the Amendment is accepted it 6.0 p.m. will be useless for hon. Members opposite to go to Scotland and pretend to be more patriotic Scotsmen than other hon. Members from Scotland.

Mr. McKINLAY: We can get seats there at all events.

Mr. MORRISON: After all, we have received a great deal of abuse in the past from hon. Members opposite who have twisted the Scottish lion's tail and made him roar on occasion, for the purpose of showing that they are the true and only lineal descendants of William Wallace and Robert Bruce. Here is a matter affecting the vital interest of agriculture in Scotland and they propose to impose a charge on the inhabitants of Scotland as well as of England for the purpose of conducting this experiment, without giving Scotland the opportunity which Conservative Governments have always given her of managing her agricultural affairs for herself with her own Department.

Mr. SCOTT: I was a member of the Committee which considered this Bill upstairs and I understand that the Under-Secretary has twitted me with being the only representative of the Liberal party on that Committee who dissented from the Government's proposals to have large-scale farming in Scotland. I suppose that most of my colleagues represented English constituencies and accordingly were interested in having large-scale experiments in farming in England. But I have some knowledge of Scotland and, representing a Scottish constituency, which to my certain knowledge does not want large-scale farming, I was entitled to maintain that view in the Committee
and I maintain it here to-night. Since the Committee stage I have taken considerable pains to acquaint myself with the views and wishes of farmers in Scotland and I have heard of no demand whatever for large-scale farming. One and all declare that they are content to farm the areas which they have at present and do not want to give them up.
Without going to the extreme illustrations employed by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) in regard to the Western Isles and the Hebrides, I take an example a little nearer home, on the mainland of Scotland. I ask the Government whether they intend to go to Aberdeenshire, for example, and to buy up a large number of the smallholdings and small farms there in order to make large-scale farms. Aberdeenshire is a county of smallholdings and obviously you could not possibly introduce large-scale farming there. I think the same remark applies practically all over Scotland. If the Government have no intention of applying large-scale farming to Scotland, would it not be better for them to have the courage to tell the House now? If they have no intention of introducing large-scale farming in Scotland—and I believe that to be the case because they know that they will be met with opposition, and they know the distrust and suspicion which already exists with regard to the proposal—then, I suggest that they should take their courage in both hands and eliminate Scotland, not from the Bill, but from this one proposal of large-scale farming.
There has been some suggestion from hon. Members opposite that the Liberal party wish, in some way, to exclude Scotland altogether from the Bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, we have ventured to extend the scope of the Bill so as to bring in agricultural workers. But some of us at any rate, and I am speaking for myself alone in this matter, take exception to the inclusion of large-scale farming in Scotland, and the purpose of this Amendment, as I understand it, is definitely to exclude Scotland from the large-scale farming proposal. I have the same apprehensions as those suggested by some hon. Members above the Gangway and by my hon. and
learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) that this Corporation will almost certainly be manned by a majority of Englishmen. I personally would whole-heartedly distrust such a Corporation. Especially with regard to a proposal of this sort, we want to have a body for Scotland composed of Scotsmen and, if possible, operating in Scotland. One can well imagine that this body will be headed by an Englishman, but with all respect to Englishmen they cannot possibly know Scottish conditions as Scotsmen do. We had an illustration in one of the last Committees appointed to deal with Scottish agriculture. The Nairne Committee was presided over by an Englishman and that is a very recent illustration of what we may expect with regard to this Corporation.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Was not Sir Gordon Nairne a Scotsman?

Mr. SCOTT: He himself may have been a Scotsman—

Mr. JOHNSTON: He was chairman of the committee.

Mr. SCOTT: That may be, but he was also a Director of the Bank of England.

Mr. WESTWOOD: That shows how he was trusted by Englishmen.

Mr. SCOTT: I cannot for the life of me see how he was trusted by his Scottish colleagues. He had been an exile from Scotland for some time. However, this proposal seems to find favour with hon. Members opposite because they regard it as a first step towards land nationalisation. They have not the same ideals with regard to land settlement in Scotland as some of us have. If they wish to have the country turned into a collection of large-scale farms, ranging from 7,000 acres to 10,000 acres, that is not the ideal which Liberal Members have. We think that the intensive cultivation of smaller areas by the men living there, with their wives and families and dependants, just as it has been a success in Continental countries will prove a success in Scotland. Indeed, in Aberdeenshire it has already proved a success. Accordingly I look with suspicion on the whole proposal of large-scale farming.
When this matter was raised in Committee I think that the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland was disposed to give some sort
of undertaking to the effect that the proposals would not, immediately at any rate, be applied to Scotland. With all respect to the right hon. Gentlemen whatever their personal wishes may be, they cannot possibly determine the future policy of their Departments if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament in its present form, and if the Department of Agriculture and this corporation are entrusted with the duty of setting up large-scale farms. This proposal will then become a statutory provision. On this point may I reply to the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Alpass) who suggested that there was no compulsion in the matter. There may be no compulsion but when the proposal has been made statutory and permission has been given to a Department, there is nothing to prevent that Department setting out upon the application of large-scale farming to Scotland. The hon. Member suggested an analogy with regard to the Forestry Commission. I was for some years a member of the consultative committee in Scotland in connection with the Forestry Commission but that committee had no power. The power is centred in the Forestry Commission which, at least, to put it mildly, is not a Scottish Commission.

Mr. ALPASS: It is a Commission for the United Kingdom—a British Commission.

Mr. SCOTT: I think that, when the Commission was set up, Liberal Members opposed the proposal to have one Commission for the whole Kingdom. We wanted a separate Commission for Scotland and I put this suggestion to the Government as an alternative. If they are determined to carry this proposal and if they succeed in doing so, I suggest that they should, at least, meet what they must realise to be the demand of Scottish Members and include a Clause in the Bill setting up a separate Commission for Scotland so that if this experiment is to be tried in Scotland it will at least have some chance of success under the management of Scotsmen.

Mr. ALPASS: The hon. Member I presume does not suggest that under the present constitution of the Forestry Commission, the interests of Scotland in regard to forestry are neglected?

Mr. SCOTT: I do not say so, but I say that the interests of Scotland would be better served if we had a Forestry Commission for Scotland.

Mr. HARDIE: In these days when the word "rationalisation" is so much on the lips of industrialists one would not expect much opposition to a proposal for an experiment of this kind in agriculture, especially since the expenditure involved is only £1,000,000 compared with the millions which have been spent on experiments on the industrial side under the guidance of those least fitted to guide such expenditure. Now we come to the question of experiments on the agricultural side and here we have some kind of guarantee which we never had in regard to the industrial side, because the Clause states definitely what are to be the qualifications and the knowledge of the persons in charge of the experiment. That is the important thing to me, as one who is always desirous of seeing experiments carried out in everything which is going to help the human race. The arguments used against this proposal to-night have so far been from the humorous side more than any other side. The hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) had great difficulty in trying to make it appear that a Scotsman was not efficient. He tried to do so by first accusing the chairman of the Nairne Committee of not being a Scotsman because that gentleman happened to be so efficient that the English people made him a director of the Bank of England. Ability cannot be hidden and that is why there need be no fear, whatever may be the membership of this Committee as between Scotsmen and Englishmen. Natural ability will tell and in that respect Scotsmen have nothing to fear. That is how it has always worked out in the past.
Reference has been made in this discussion to certain restrictions but there is another restriction as far as Scotland is concerned, against that put forward by the late Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Take the district of Morven where there used to be small crofts. The representative of the party opposite were responsible for clearing out those small people and the ruins of the cottages are still there. There is a tragedy. The present owner even took down a beautiful house designed by Architect Adams of Edinburgh and covered the place with
earth and got the grass to grow upon it, so that there might be nothing whatever left to show that man had ever used his skill of hand or brain to raise food from the soil there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was he?"] His name is Craig Sellars. There is very little left, and when you get down to the real facts you know what the restrictions are there. No one would suggest that mechanisation of agriculture would be much use in that area. If you cross over to Loch Lomond you find the same thing. There is grazing land with bogland underneath, and it is quite well known that if you put a tractor on to it, it will sink up to its axles. There will, however, be practical men on this Committee to spend this money on this experiment, and there need be no fear that the Englishmen will take away the rights of Scotsmen, even though the Scotsmen are in a minority.
Apart from the natural restrictions I have mentioned, there would be great advantages from the use of mechanised labour on land in Scotland. In mountainous districts, however, men with skill are required to do the work, and it is no good trying to do cheap work. I knew a man who could put only 300 sheep on his land because of the short winterings, but I knew another highly skilled man who came along and did certain burnings of the heather in the spring, and he is able to put 3,000 sheep on the land. That is the direction where we cannot apply the mechanisation idea, because in the mountainous districts mechanisation will do no good, but when you come down to the big, broad lands, the system can be applied. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who appears to be more out for a joke than to take a serious part in the discussion—

Mr. BOOTHBY: I must protest against that. I have not made a single interjection or remark of any kind, but I cannot help smiling.

Mr. HARDIE: The whole question of experiment should be viewed with breadth of mind. We have had many arguments and debates in this House on the condition of agriculture, and it always seems that when anything real is put forward in order to experiment and to see what can be done to improve agriculture, specious arguments are brought forward
such as we have heard this afternoon. If this were something to be done by general application, I should probably oppose it, because I like to see things tested out before they are applied. As this is only a matter of testing out, I hope that those who believe in agriculture, will support it.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I can assure the hon. Member who has just spoken that I do not think that this is a smiling matter at all. It is a serious matter to Scotland. The hon. Member spoke about mechanised labour. I am certain that if you introduce mechanised labour on a large scale in Scotland, it will mean the end of Scottish agriculture and farming. The whole of Scottish agriculture has been built up by the skill and deep knowledge of the individual farmer. I am certain that it will never do to apply mechanisation and large-scale farming to Scotland, and if we try to imitate the large-scale methods of production which are in operation in the great wheat countries of the world like Canada and Russia, we shall never be able to compete for a moment with their products. If that is the line upon which we are going to advance in regard to agriculture in Scotland, the outlook is blacker than I thought. The Government have done little enough for agriculture up to date, and if they are going to embark on large-scale farming in Scotland, they will give agriculture there a final blow.
I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he has any evidence that large-scale farming operations, so far as any particular commodity is concerned, would be suitable to be applied in any part of Scotland? We really deserve to have that information. I am certain that in Aberdeenshire they will be most unsuitable. We have as fine a type of agriculture there as exists in any part of the world. We breed a special type of cattle, and our breeders are the most expert of any almost that can be found upon the civilised globe. Indeed, we send Aberdeen Angus cattle out to the Argentine every year. How have they managed to obtain that position? It is by sheer individual skill and application, and is it supposed that large-scale farms or mechanised labour would ever have produced the herds that exist at Aberdeenshire to-day? I understand that mention has
been made of the hen farm at Corstorphine. As a native of Corstorphine, I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether that farm is not privately owned, and whether he can give us any guarantee that the corporation which is to be set up to direct farming operations in Scotland would set up another hen farm, and whether Scotland can contain another hen farm of the size?
As one of the representatives of Aberdeenshire, I would like to say that I am not arguing that we cannot do with the money in Scotland. We want it, and I hope that the Secretary of State, even if he decides to accept this Amendment, will make it clear that he wants to get his proper share of the money that is to be spent by this piebald board which is going to be set up. We can spend it much better than conducting experiments of large-scale farms. Why not hand it over to the research department of the Department of Agriculture? There are 15 or 20 ways in which this money could be spent to great advantage to Scottish agriculture, and the only way it can be spent without any advantage at all is the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. There is a good deal of loose talk in Scotland just now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—in Scotland, not in the House of Commons, and particularly by the supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite, about Home Rule for Scotland. I do not believe that there is any urgent demand in Scotland for Home Rule in its widest sense, but if we are going to hand over a large part of the direction of new methods of Scottish agriculture to a committee composed principally of Englishmen, who are to tell us what sort of farms are best suited to Scotland, there will be deep and justifiable resentment among the whole of the agricultural community of Scotland. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would fulfil the purpose of his office very much better if he stipulated first for the cash, and, secondly, for the right to have it spent by Scotsmen in Scotland, and for purposes that will be of some advantage to Scottish agriculture.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): In response to the direct appeal that has just been made, I rise to say once more what has been said before with regard to the Amendment. I rise at this stage for
the purpose of shortening the discussion. This question was thoroughly discussed upstairs, and by a majority the provision was inserted in the Bill. The object of the Amendment is simply to cut out Scotland from this particular benefit. The Bill provides for a considerable sum of money—£1,000,000—being spent on large-scale farms and experiments in large-scale farming. The Amendment proposes to cut Scotland out of any benefits that would accrue from an experiment of this kind. It is true that if the experiments were proceeded with in England and were successful, the experience would be available to Scotland, but that would not be of the same benefit to Scotland as if part of the experiment had taken place in Scotland itself. I could have understood some English Member proposing to cut Scotland out of the Bill, but I cannot understand a Scotsman putting forward an Amendment that will cut out his country from whatever benefit is to accrue from the spending of this money.

Mr. SCOTT: It is because we do not regard it as a benefit to Scotland.

Mr. ADAMSON: I could have understod some Englishman or Welshman moving such an Amendment, but I cannot understand any Scottish Member proposing to cut out his country from the benefit that is to come to agriculture by the spending of this £1,000,000. It passes my comprehension. More particularly am I surprised when I find first one Aberdeenshire Member and then another rising to support the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). As the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove does not represent a farming constituency, he may be forgiven for moving such an Amendment, but that it should be supported by Members from Aberdeenshire passes my comprehension. [Interruption.] I frankly plead guilty to having that particular Scottish trait very fully developed. I want my country to have its share of whatever benefits are going, either in agriculture or anything else.
What reasons have been given for the attitude which these Scottish Members have taken up? The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove quoted something I said during the Committee stage. He said that I stated that I did not take the view that large-scale farming would
lead to more unemployment, but, rather, that it would provide more employment. I am not departing from the statement I made in Committee. I have again examined the question since then and feel the statement I then made will bear examination. The hon. and gallant Member may have forgotten that I went on to say that both the Minister for Agriculture and myself were having question after question put to us with the object of bringing out the difficulties looming ahead of agriculture and the large tracts of land going out of cultivation. If they were going out of cultivation, I said, surely it was all the more necessary that we should have an experiment of this kind to test—

Mr. SKELTON: What kind of agricultural experiment has the right hon. Gentleman in view in his large-scale farming proposals? Is it arable, grass, sheep, or what kind of farming?

Mr. ADAMSON: I hope the hon. Member will restrain himself for a few minutes. I have no intention of shirking the points that have been put to me. I am dealing with them one by one, at least I am attempting to do so, and I am doing my best, and if the hon. Member will restrain his enthusiasm, I may have the opportunity of giving him a little information which he does not possess. I was pointing out that if it was true that large tracts of land were going out of cultivation, it was all the more reason for experiments to see whether it was necessary for us to allow this land to go derelict.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: May I ask where the land is which is going out of cultivation?

Mr. ADAMSON: I was pointing out that question after question had been addressed to the Minister of Agriculture and myself pointing out that land was going out of cultivation, and that something ought to be done for agriculture.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: In Scotland?

Mr. ADAMSON: The questions applied to Scotland as well as to England. The hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove went on to say there was no demand for an experiment in large-scale farming in Scotland, and that view was put in a different form by the hon. Mem-
ber for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) and by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) as well as by the last speaker. They tried to make play with a very good example which had been given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of what had been done in one instance, which is an excellent instance of what can be accomplished on a large scale. [Interruption.] Whether these experiments are to be undertaken by the State or private individuals is only raised on that side of the House. One excellent example has been given of large-scale farming, and I will give another. This time I go to the part of the country represented by the hon. Member for East Fife and myself. If the hon. Member for East Fife knew his constituency as well as I know it, he would have known that large-scale farming was taking place there.

Mr. MILLAR: That is the whole point I made in my speech. It is taking place under private enterprise—in my constituency and in others.

Mr. ADAMSON: If it is taking place successfully, whether under private enterprise or in any other form we ask why it should not be applicable to Scotland? If that is the situation then the whole case of hon. Members opposite goes by the board. Particulars of the other experiment are contained in this letter, which is dated 23rd November, 1930, and was written when we were discussing the Bill in Committee:
I am much interested in the proposals brought forward by the Government for establishing experimental farms on a large scale. I have been doing something of the kind myself, and am now farming about 1,000 acres, principally arable. I work almost entirely with tractors. I built and equipped a model dairy and supply T.T. certified milk from pedigree Ayrshires. I have a herd of pedigree large white pigs, and local pedigree sheep, and I have just started a herd of A.A. tested, also pedigrees. I have erected a silo, and am one of the few successful growers of lucerne in Scotland. I feel a great more could be done on these lines if one had the advantage of the scientific knowledge that is being daily gathered by the various departments of the Board of Agriculture. I do not now know how you will propose to start the scheme in Scotland, but I should welcome any proposal for collaboration. I have already done a great deal of spade work, and with cheap electricity available, water power, and my awn private railway running through the farm to facilitate transport, it would take
very little to make my farm a very successful model and, even in these times, not unprofitable.

HON. MEMBERS: He is a seller. What is the price?

Mr. ADAMSON: There you have a very good example of large-scale farming in Scotland, which illustrates the point I made when I was speaking of the likelihood of more people being employed rather than fewer if large-scale farming were adopted.
The next point with which I wish to deal was raised by the hon. Member for Kincardine. He took up the same position as the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove and the hon. Member for East Fife, that there was no demand for this in Scotland, and he wanted to know where the Government would get the land. He said, "Do the Government propose to buy up the smallholdings and the farms in Aberdeenshire?" I say quite frankly that so far as I, personally, am concerned I have no such idea in my mind. Nobody has a greater respect for the Aberdeenshire farmers than I have, and if I can do anything to help them I will do it, and I will do nothing to hinder. But while there may not be much land available in Aberdeenshire, that does not mean that there is not land available in other parts of the country. I could take hon. Members to a part of Scotland where there are tens of thousands of acres which have been allowed to go out of cultivation, land which at the present moment is feeding one sheep to the two acres. A part of the land to which I refer is in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian (Major Colville). Take that large stretch of land running from the borders of Edinburgh right down to the borders of Ayrshire—thousands upon thousands of acres waiting to be farmed in a practical way! I hope that will be some comfort to the hon. Member who raised the point. There are thousands of acres of land in Scotland waiting to be properly farmed, and at the present moment they are being misused, so far as farming is concerned.
The next point with which I wish to deal was raised by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who told us that the Government had done nothing for the farmers, and he also asked if the Secretary of State for Scotland would tell
the House what the Government intended to do. First of all, I will deal with the hon. Member's statement that the Government have done nothing for the farmers.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks more to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. ADAMSON: I will try to keep within the Rules of Order, but I was replying to an observation made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen, and it is not the first time that a statement of that kind has been made. I want to attempt to do for agriculture what we are trying to do for the fishing industry. May I here point out that the Government got very little help from the hon. Member for East Aberdeen in their efforts to help the fishing industry.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must really confine his remarks to the question of the extension to Scotland of this particular Clause.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The right hon. Gentleman has accused the of not giving adequate assistance to the Government in their attempt to assist the fishermen, and that is a very grave accusation.

Major ELLIOT: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not, going to leave this question there, because I know that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen badgered the right hon. Gentleman day after day on that very question.

Mr. GUINNESS: If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to answer those questions, then he ought to withdraw the statement which he has made.

Mr. ADAMSON: I was proceeding to deal with the first point, which is only one of five or six different things for which the Government are making provision. One of those things is large-
scale farming. I want to come back strictly to the Amendment that is now before the House. Our view is that if we are to have experiments in large-scale farming under this Bill, and money is to be spent upon that object, Scotland should share in the benefit. Under this Measure, Scotland will have its fair share of representation on the Corporation, and that representation will see that the interests of Scotland are preserved. So far as I am personally concerned, I have
no fear about large-scale farming experiments being as successful in Scotland as in England, and I believe they will be successful in both countries. My opinion is that there is as much room for the success of those experiments in Scotland as in England.
Several hon. Members opposite have taken up the position that it would be much better if the money we are proposing to spend on these experiments were spent in other directions, but I do not agree with that contention. I believe that if we proceed with these experiments by different methods of farming with a view to finding out what is best for the agricultural industry, we shall get much valuable information that will enable us to judge whether the old methods of farming, or the methods proposed under this Bill, are the most advantageous to the agricultural industry. We shall get information that is available at the present moment only in a limited degree by having experiments made both in Scotland and England, and we shall obtain experience that will be for the benefit of the agricultural industry. We want to engage in large-scale farming in Scotland, as provided for in this Bill, instead of leaving it to private enterprise, as hon. Members opposite desire.
The agricultural industry, like the future of other industries, will become more and more mechanised in the near future than ever it has been in the past, and that is the reason why we want to adopt this type of large-scale farming. When the Government are proposing to make experiments of this character, I see no reason in the world why we should not adopt large-scale farming as well as the other types which are provided for in the Bill. I hope that the House will reject this Amendment for excluding my country from the benefits of this Bill by a substantial majority.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: My opinion is that Scotland ought to have control of its own experiments, and it is wrong for any Board in London to control anything in the direction of mechanised farming in Scotland which ought to be distinctly part of the work of the Scottish Board of Agriculture. The first proposition raised by the Amendment is that Scotland ought to be omitted from the actions
of this Board, and that if any money is to be spent on experimental farming in Scotland, it should be done separately by the Board of Agriculture in Scotland. From the point of view of large-scale farming, Scotland is quite unsuited for such work. Everyone knows that experiments are going on now in Hampshire and Norfolk in connection with large-scale farming, and they are introducing mechanised farming from the Argentine and elsewhere, using Canadian machines and other large mechanised paraphernalia for cereal growing.
The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) pointed out correctly that Scottish agriculture depended for its success on the expertness of individuals, not only farmers but also farm workers. It has been clearly proved that in large-scale mechanised farming, while you may get a cheaper production the crop is smaller, and therefore, if we desire to get any real advantage in Scotland out of farming, we should foster that fine breed of persons who are employed on the arable land in Scotland, and in Norfolk and Berkshire, and see that the land is being cultivated to the best advantage. These experiments on large-scale farming are not required. They should certainly be carried out by private enterprise, because the expenditure of money for this purpose in Scotland is a sheer waste.
As far as Scotland is concerned, I am very much opposed to any such experiment. It may be desired to carry out such experiments in England, but if you get private enterprise to carry them out it is far better than the State undertaking them. I know some of those experiments in England have been successful, but in Scotland the land is quite unsuitable for large-scale farming. At the present time Scottish farms are cultivated to their full capacity, and you are getting returns at the present moment from the land which can never be got by a system of large-scale farming. For these reasons, I think there is a great deal of justification for this Amendment, and if we are to spend money on these experiments, the expenditure should be under the control of the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and not under the control of a Board in London.

7.0 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am sure that many hon. Members will agree with the argument which has been put before the House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison). We could hardly have had a less convincing reply to the many speeches which we have heard in favour of the Amendment than that which we have had from the Secretary of State for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman largely ignored the arguments advanced from this side and with so much cogency from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman 7.0 p.m. man of the views he expressed in Committee in regard to a sub-committee of this corporation being set up to control its operations in Scotland. One of my hon. Friends moved to set up a Scottish sub-committee on the Board, and he was begged by the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment as it was quite contrary to the principles embodied in the Bill. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman talks, as he has done this evening, about having these large-scale experiments in Scotland, it is perfectly clear that they will be managed by a corporation mainly, if not entirely, English. It must be at least one on which Scotland cannot hope to have more than a small minority of members and which will carry on its work with headquarters in England. It is bound to be so much occupied with the problems of English agriculture that it may well be that it will have only a small part of its time to spare for Scottish affairs. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have been Secretary of State for a second time without realising some of the difficulties in Scottish farming and without realising the tremendous variety of soils in Scotland. Why, in my own constituency I have extremes of land, the hills which can only pasture sheep and same of the rich lowland arable land which grows crops which will bear comparison with crops anywhere.
There is another point which seems to have been entirely ignored by Government speakers, and that is the very high standard of farming that we have in many parts of Scotland. One of the things of which we are proud in Scotland is the way in which the Scottish farmer, particularly in the Lowlands, has built up a
type of farm which we believe can challenge comparison with those in any part of the world. A year or two ago a report was published showing how greatly the yield per acre had increased in Scottish farming during the last 50 years. It can also be shown how much progress has been made in the early fattening of cattle and sheep and in the increased yield from pasture, all pointing to the diligence, skill, and knowledge of the Scottish farmers in their work. I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can name any country in which there is a higher yield per acre than Scotland, and yet it is to Scottish agriculture of that type, wrestling with tremendous difficulties, that he comes and says, by implication, "You do not know how to manage your affairs, and, if only we can get a corporation, composed mainly of English people, it is going to improve matters in Scotland."
The right hon. Gentleman must know that Scottish farmers are absolutely at one tin saying that the trouble is uncontrolled imports. With one voice, they say, "Give us some control over imports, and we shall be able to bold our own." It is perfectly futile to say that if only we have a corporation, mainly English in knowledge and personnel, even with up-to-date machinery, it will be able to do for Scottish farming what the Scottish farmer finds very difficult to do at present. Then the right hon. Gentleman tells us that large-scale farming is already in existence in Scotland. That has been already pointed out, and it is the very best reason for leaving it alone. Could you have any better indication of how up-to-date and progressive it can be than the fact that, in spite of all the difficulties in recent years, and with no State subvention, and when the Scottish banks have not been as ready to give agricultural credits as their colleagues in England, Scottish farmers have yet been able to start these large-scale experiments? And how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to help the men who have been able to make these experiments? He proposes to come in and help them by setting up competitors who will have State subventions and be able to borrow on more favourable terms than the ordinary farmer, thereby putting the farmers in what seems to me a posi-
tion in which they will be faced with very unfair competition. That assuredly seems an amazing way in which to help the Scottish farmer struggling in days of worse adversity than he has ever known. He may well say that he distrusts the Greeks even when they approach him with gifts, because it is quite obvious that, if money is going to be spent in subsidising certain State experiments in competition with the experiments built up by private enterprise, the last state of the Scottish farmer may well be worse than the first.
The right hon. Gentleman should remember that no one has suggested that we should not get Scotland's fair share of what money may be available under the Bill. We have more confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's Department of Agriculture than he has himself, because we say that his agricultural Department is doing very valuable work in the way of research in many directions although it is inadequately supplied with funds, and however little the right hon. Gentleman may interest himself in the matter we believe it could make very good use of whatever may be Scotland's due share under this Bill. Therefore, we say that the proposals of the Bill constitute an affront to Scottish agriculture, for by implication they seem to suggest that, in the view of the Government, the Scottish farmer does not know his own business and that it would be better known by what will mainly be an English corporation. I cannot conceive anything more likely to incense men who are struggling with great difficulties and who a year ago came to this House and, irrespective of party, told us what they wanted and who now see their suggestions ignored by the Government. It is a preposterous suggestion that, through the setting up of a corporation, mainly English, wonderful things will follow such as the Scottish farmer cannot achieve for himself. It has been quite clear from the attitude of the Secretary of State in regard to a Scottish sub-committee—

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I point out that that Amendment has not yet been reached, and it is utterly out of order to discuss it.

Duchess of ATHOLL: We shall wait with great interest to see what is the attitude of the Government on that matter, but we have not come to the Debate with high hopes considering the response which was made in Committee. As there has been a chorus of resentment at the suggestion that Scottish agriculture should be managed by what otherwise must mainly be an English board, I hope it will be possible for the Government a little later to be less unyielding on this matter than they have been hitherto. I cannot conceive any proposal more out of harmony with the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary are apt to take in regard to Scottish matters as a whole than this suggestion of handing over the experiments to a corporation mainly English. It is only a few days ago that I read with considerable interest a speech of the Under-Secretary delivered in Scotland, the climax of which was that there was an overwhelming case for the devolution of Scottish affairs. I can hardly imagine anything less in keeping with that speech than that the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary should come here and say, in regard to agriculture, which is inalienable—for you cannot remove land out of a country, it must necessarily be the most national and distinctive asset of any country—and which in the last 20 years has been under the Board of Agriculture, that the Board is now to be ignored, that we are to leave on one side all the accumulated experience of 20 years, and that we shall have much better farms if only this mainly English corporation is put in control of large-scale experiments.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I be allowed to remove the misapprehension which seems to exist in the mind of certain hon. Members, including the Noble Lady, with reference to the Government's attitude upon the succeeding Amendment. If all the trouble is as to how the affairs of the corporation are to be administered in Scotland, then I submit that that might be reserved until we come to the next Amendment. The issue ought not to be clouded by an appeal to nationalist sentiment—

Mr. SPEAKER: These Amendments seem to be very much bound up together. They all refer to the question whether Scotland should be excluded from the
operation of this particular Clause, and, of course, reasons which may bear on any other Amendment may be used as an argument for excluding Scotland from the operation of the Clause.

Major ELLIOT: May I say in a sentence what our view is? It is simply, in the first place, that we should desire Scotland to be excluded, and we shall divide on that to bring out our point of view. If Scotland is included, then we shall hope the Government will meet us on the further point that the affairs of this corporation should be administered in Scotland as far as possible. We desire that a due proportion of the finance should be left to the Scottish Sub-Committee. The general proposition which we are putting is that we should leave Scotland out, but if it is put in, then we desire as much devolution in Scotland as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: And in Wales too.

Dr. ADDISON: The point to which hon. Members have been devoting themselves is as to whether Scotland should or should not be excluded from the operation of the Clause, and, as I understood it when we had it in Committee, it would be followed by a discussion of the following Amendments dealing with the principles of the Clause itself and large-scale farming. There is lower down on the Paper an Amendment relating to the management of the affairs in Scotland if Scotland remains in. I cannot conceive anything more reactionary or shortsighted than the proposal to leave Scotland out. Later on we deal with the main points in regard to the internal Scottish side of the business. I should like, though I could not take the form of words on the Paper, between now and later on to try to come to some agreement as to the form of the Scottish management that would meet objections. If this matter can be kept alive on the understanding that we can discuss it when we get to it, we may now be able to come to a decision upon the main question which is before the Committee.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you propose to call the later Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot)—in page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the affairs of the corporation as regards Scotland shall be administered, controlled, and managed by a sub-committee of the board, which shall hold its meetings in Scotland, and such subcommittee shall have the right to co-opt additional members to the extent of one-third of its number.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is my intention.

Mr. WESTWOOD: One could have better appreciated the position taken up by the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl), and other Members on the Conservative and Liberal benches, if their arguments had really been directed to the Amendment which is before the House. This Amendment does not deal with the question of a Scottish corporation, but with the question of the exclusion of Scotland from experiments in connection with large-scale farming—

Mr. MILLAR: Under the proposal in the Clause.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Let me repeat that the Amendment before the House is not designed to set up a Scottish corporation or to constitute a separate fund for the carrying out of large-scale farming in Scotland. It is designed for only one purpose, and that is the exclusion of Scotland from experiments in connection with large-scale farming.

Mr. MILLAR: Under this Clause.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Exactly, but let us deal with questions as they arise. No one is more anxious than I am that Scotland shall not be dragged at the tail of England, but shall have the right to look after its own affairs. I have never given away the rights of Scotland so easily and speedily as hon. Members opposite. The only question before us is whether Scotland shall have the advantage of any experiments that may take place in connection with large-scale farming. Surely, the experience that Scottish Members have had, and particularly those representing agricultural constituencies, because of certain action that we took not so many years ago in separating Scottish from English administration on the question of finance, should have taught us at least to be very careful, when it is not a question of Scottish law or administration, or credits, or agricultural interests, but merely a question of experiments, not to be so desperately anxious to separate ourselves from Great Britain administra-
tion and seek to claim a Scottish administration. Questions have come repeatedly, and from none more repeatedly than those on the Liberal benches, on the fact that we have never been able to get the Agricultural Credits Act to operate in Scotland, because we demanded, rightly or wrongly—I am inclined to think now, as the result of experience, that it was wrongly—that there should be a separate Act for Scotland. Had we accepted a Great Britain corporation, Scottish agriculturists would to-day have been getting the benefit of the Agricultural Credits Act, which we are now doing our best to operate in Scotland, but to which we can only get four banks to agree.
That experience has taught me that, when we are dealing with finance, and not with Scottish characteristics or agriculture, it is far better to have a Great Britain corporation than a separate Scottish corporation. I think I represent the finest agricultural area in Great Britain. [Interruption.] Perhaps it might be said that the land in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is better than that in mine—[Interruption.] There appears to be a great deal of competition as to which is the best, but there are thousands of acres of land in Midlothian to-day that are uncultivated. I do not wish to see any single farmer in that county displaced, and there is plenty of land there on which we can experiment, either by way of reclamation or by way of large-scale farming. For this reason I sincerely trust that Scotland will be kept within the scope of the Bill, that the Amendment will be rejected, and that it may be possible for any experiments in large-scale farming to apply to Scotland as well as to England.

Mr. SKELTON: I should not have intervened but for the complete failure—no doubt it was not in the least through discourtesy—of the Secretary of State to answer the question which I ventured to put to him as to what form of farming was going to be undertaken on the Government large-scale farms if these were introduced in Scotland. As far as I can gather, it is to be a form of farming which is going to increase the number of people or the land. That would seem as though it were to be
arable farming, but it was hinted by the right hon. Gentleman, and definitely stated by the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood), that the kind of land upon which these Government large-scale farms are to be placed is land which no farmer is cultivating now. I am left completely in the dark as to what is in the mind of the Government. In the first place, no land has gone derelict in Scotland. Land has changed from arable to grass, but, so far as I know, and the Secretary of State did not give any example, no land has gone derelict in the sense in which certain districts in the East of England have gone or are going derelict.
Therefore, one vital question is whether, is this large-scale farming, an attempt is merely going to be made to convert land which is under grass into arable farms again? Or is it the case that, as the hon. Member for Peebles seems to suggest, the attempt is going to be made to introduce arable farming in that cold, wild, bleak, upland district stretching between the Pentlands and Ayrshire, which has the coldest soil and is the most wind-swept district in the South of Scotland? If so, the expenditure of £1,000,000 on this must be resisted by the House of Commons, because it will be £1,000,000 thrown, not into the sea, but into the coldest and most hopeless agricultural adventure that even a Government Department ever entered upon. The truth of the matter is that, thanks to the extraordinary skill of the Scottish farmers, every acre of Scotland is being used in the very highest way that is possible under the fiscal system under which we live, and, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that he or the English corporation can make a success of arable farming in districts where individual Scottish farmers have failed, he is making a gigantic mistake
Again, what is going to be the size of these large-scale farms? Wherever the land is good in Scotland, and I believe that the same is true in England also, the farming is already on a large scale. The right hon. Gentleman, with an ingenuousness which I thought did his heart more credit than his head, read a letter from a large-scale farmer, whose object, clearly, was to sell his farm, and I thought I had hardly ever read a better worded advertisement. It was the
sort of letter which is reported to have been received by a distinguished criminal from a member of the jury who convicted him, saying that he was very sorry that he had agreed to a verdict of "Guilty," because he was quite certain that he had made a mistake in doing so, and concluding: "P.S.—Can you lend me half-a-crown?" That is the quality of the letter which the right hon. Gentleman read. He quoted it as a kind of example of the large-scale farming that he had in view—a farm of 1,000 acres. There are, however, hundreds of farms of 1,000 acres already cultivated, and the right hon. Gentleman's efforts will show nothing as to what can be done on a farm of 1,000 acres.
Further, there is not a man acquainted with and interested in the rural life of Scotland who does not feel that one of the gravest social evils of our rural life is the extension of large-scale farming. There is not a class that does not lament the growth of what in Scotland is called the "led" farm, where one farmer cultivates three, four, five, six, or even a dozen farms, the total acreage of which is, not 1,000, but 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000. That is lamented because in these cases you get farmhouses out of occupation, you get cowmen's cottages out of occupation; and it is, perhaps, one of the most anxious features of Scottish farming today that the led farms are increasing every year. The Ted farm is simply large-scale farming, conducted, I agree, by most skilful individuals. What advantage is there in adding, to the privately-run large-scale farms, farms which are going to cost the country £1,000,000? The thing is fantastic.
Everyone knows what the origin of this Clause is. It is not a desire to imitate Russia. Everyone who has studied the question knows that it had its origin in the Ministry of Agriculture, and the cause of its being introduced into this Bill, where it is a complete excrescence and a complete monstrosity, is this: Everyone knows it, but I wish to state it clearly in this House. The agricultural colleges produce year by year a number of highly-trained and skilled students. They do not all go back to farms; they do not all find occupation under private enterprise. The Ministry of Agriculture, I believe, has long been anxious to give these highly-trained fellows something to play with, and the
Government large-scale farms seem to be the best thing for them to play with. That is the departmental origin of this Clause, and that is one of the reasons why I think it is an outrage to bring Scotland into its ambit.

Dr. ADDISON: We are, I understand, going to discuss presently the question of large-scale farming, and then the adjectives which have been used by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) may, perhaps, be properly considered. This particular Amendment relates to the exclusion of Scotland. We have discussed it now for a very long time, and I appeal to hon. Members to allow it to be disposed of.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: On this subject I speak, not as an English Member, but as a residenter in Scotland. I do not wish for a moment to argue the question of large-scale farming as a whole. What the Minister wants, if this Clause is passed, is to make experiments in large-scale farming. Why cannot he leave Scotland out of his experiments? That is the sole question which is raised by this Amendment. The Minister has opportunity enough in England to experiment if he passes this Clause; why cannot he leave out Scotland? I have listened to as much of this Debate as I could before I was obliged to go away, and what brought me to my feet was something that I heard before I had to leave, and, later, the remarks of the hon. Member for Peebles (Mr. Westwood). The only defence that I heard from the Under-Secretary was the suggestion that it is hardly conceivable that this Clause could ever be applied to Scotland, and, therefore—I hope I am not misrepresenting him—let us not alter the Bill, but leave the Government free to apply the Clause to Scotland. In those circumstances, it is really ludicrous that the Government should not consent to the Amendment.
There are just one or two arguments with which perhaps I might be allowed to deal. The first was from the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Alpass), who asked why, seeing that there was one Forestry Commission, functioning both in Scotland and in England, this Clause should not be allowed to apply to Scotland, and why an English corporation should not have power to function in Scotland also. His own argument shows
the weakness of the case. There is one Forestry Commission, is true, for the two countries, but you have two Departments of Agriculture, because the conditions are so extraordinarily different in the two countries. I come to the question raised by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Westwood). I know Midlothian from an agricultural point of view probably as well as the hon. Member, and I would ask him whether he can point to any part of that county where large-scale farming would pay and whether, if it was introduced in any ordinary part of the county, it would not be an absurdity to have managing it one single corporation, of which, of course, the headquarters would be in this country. I know some of the large-scale farms there intimately and the people who conduct them. They make them pay because they have a personal, intimate knowledge of the conditions there. I know them just outside Edinburgh. They are extraordinarily skilful and very able men. They manage to scratch along in these hard times for farming only because they know how they can work in and out with the manure that can be produced in Edinburgh and the services they can perform for carting and the rest of it.
Here you get, by the hypothesis of this Bill, one corporation whose business it is to promote large-scale farming. It is obvious that the first object of a corporation of this kind would be to try to run large wheat farms in England. Some such have been tried experimentally, and a few with moderate success, but it is inconceivable that a body which is primarily engaged with these should also make a practical success of dealing with conditions such as I have described in Midlothian or dealing with the great fruit growing districts in Perthshire mentioned by the Under-Secretary. The moment a corporation, whose primary object was large-scale adventures in England, tried to make a

secondary object of running some large-scale farm up there, whether one of those highly cultivated Midlothian farms or in some of the fruit-growing districts, they would make a most calamitous mess of the whole operation. Every practical man who has to do with Scottish farming at all knows it. If the Minister has scope enough for his adventures in England, why cannot he cut the poor country of Scotland out of the ambit of the misfortunes that would follow upon the application of the Bill?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I want to intervene, as a Member for an English constituency, in Scottish affairs on account of what was said by the Under-Secretary that large-scale farming could be made to pay. He instanced a farm in Lincolnshire, my own county, but he was careful not to say which farm it was. I know two or three large-scale farms which have made a success—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks would be more suitable to the next Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The Under-Secretary entered upon a considerable argument in the matter of large-scale farming. I do not think you, Sir, were in the Chair at the time. If it is not in order, I will reserve my remarks until later. Hon. Members have assumed that the definition of large-scale farming is farming large areas, but the hon. Gentleman distinctly said it was not area, but large-scale, perhaps with a small area with intensive or other cultivation. I do not know whether the Scottish people realise the kind of thing they are going to be let in for. I think this large-scale farming will not suit Scotland, and, therefore, I support the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 171.

Division No. 97.]
AYES.
[7.27 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Ayles, Walter
Bowen, J. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Addison. Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Broad, Francis Alfred


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Barnes, Alfred John
Brockway, A. Fenner


Alpass, J. H.
Bellamy, Albert
Bromfield, William


Ammon, Charles George
Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Brooke, W.


Angell, Sir Norman
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Brothers, M.


Arnott, John
Benson, G.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)


Aske, Sir Robert
Blindell, James
Brown. Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Buchanan, G.


Burgess, F. G.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Pybus, Percy John


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Eliand)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cameron, A. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rathbone, Eleanor


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kinley, J.
Raynes, W. R.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Richards, R.


Chater, Daniel
Knight, Holford
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clarke, J. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cluse, W. S.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Ritson, J


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Romeril, H. G.


Compton, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Rowson, Guy


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Daggar, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sanders, W. S.


Dallas, George
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sandham, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lees, J.
Sawyer, G. F.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Dickson, T.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scurr, John


Dukes, C.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sexton, Sir James


Duncan, Charles
Lonqbottom, A. W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Ede, James Chuter
Longden, F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Shield, George William


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Egan, W. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shillaker, J. F.


Elmley, viscount
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shinwell, E.


Foot, Isaac
McElwee, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Freeman, Peter
McEntee, V. L.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McShane, John James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gill, T. H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gillett, George M.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Snell, Harry


Glassey, A. E.
March, S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gossling, A. G.
Marcus, M.
Sorensen, R.


Gould, F.
Markham, S. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marley, J.
Stephen, Campbell


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marshall, Fred
Strachey, E. J. St. Los


Granville, E.
Mathers, George
Strauss, G. R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Matters, L. W.
Sullivan, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Sutton, J. E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Melville, Sir James
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Messer, Fred
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Middleton, G.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Montague, Frederick
Tinker, John Joseph


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tout, W. J.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morley, Ralph
Townend, A. E.


Harbord, A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hardie, George D.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Vaughan, D. J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mort, D. L.
Walkden, A. G.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Walker, J.


Haycock, A. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wallace, H. W.


Mayday, Arthur
Muff, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Hayes, John Henry
Muggeridge, H. T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wellock, Wilfred


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Herriotts, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hirst, G. H. (York, W.R., Wentworth)
Oldfield, J. R.
West, F. R.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, George Harold (likeston)
Westwood, Joseph


Hopkin, Daniel
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Horrabin, J. F.
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Perry, S. F,
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Isaacs, George
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Jenkins, Sir William
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Johnston, Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith



Jones, F. Llewellyn, (Flint)
Pole, Major D. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown
Potts, John S.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Price, M. P.
William Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Atkinson, C.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman


Albery, Irving James
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Bird, Ernest Roy


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Boothby, R. J. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Beaumont, M. W.
Boyce, Leslie


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Bracken, B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Brass, Captain Sir William




Briscoe, Richard George
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Penny, Sir George


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks,Newb'y)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butler, R. A.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Campbell, E. T.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Ramsbotham, H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hanbury, C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hartington, Marquess of
Remer, John R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cockerill, Brig. General Sir George
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Salmon, Major I.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Savery, S. S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Iveagh, Countess of
Scott, James


Crichton-Stuart. Lord C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst.)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Skelton, A. N.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith. R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Dawson Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lymington, Viscount
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Tinne, J. A.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Ferguson, Sir John
Marjoribanks, Edward
Train, J.


Fermoy, Lord
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fielden, E. B.
Meller, R. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Ford, Sir P. J.
Millar, J. D.
Water-house. Captain Charles


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W
White, H. G.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Withers, Sir John James


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Muirhead, A. J.
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
O'Neill, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir




Victor Warrender.

Captain DUGDALE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out the words "large scale."
The purpose of this Amendment is to have a discussion on the wisdom, or otherwise, of experiments in large-scale farming. I would refer the Minister of Agriculture to his opening remarks on the Second Reading of this Bill, when he used these words:
It is high time that we, as a nation, made a considered and sustained endeavour to restore prosperity to and increase employment in the countryside."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1930; col. 1891, Vol. 244.]
I am convinced that every Member on this side of the House, and, indeed, every Member wherever he sits in this House would, if he thought that large-scale farming would accomplish that purpose, heartily support it. In Committee upstairs we discussed this Clause for four
days, and never during the whole of that time did the Minister tell us that this experiment would help either the agricultural industry or increase employment in our countryside. I will look at the position from the point of view of the agricultural industry. The problem today in that industry is not a problem of the method of tenure of agricultural land, but rather a problem of prices. If under private ownership and by private enterprise the farmer is unable to make his farming pay, why should a Minister come to the considered conclusion that, by engaging in a form of State farming, farming will be made an economic proposition?
All the economists and professors who have advocated large-scale farming have been of the opinion that, whereas the large-scale farm may be a good thing in certain parts of the country, and on certain kinds of land, you can only make
it economically possible if to a very large extent you use the mechanised instrument, and that by so doing you would not encourage people to come back to the land but would drive more people away from the agricultural industry. The Minister, in the course of the Committee stage, referred to the fact that during the last three years upwards of a million acres have gone out of cultivation. He proposes, I understand, by this method of establishing large-scale farms, to get this million acres back again into cultivation. He has not told us in what form he proposes to get back these million acres into arable cultivation. Does he propose to go down to what one might term the black spots in the agricultural industry, the cereal areas throughout the country, in Norfolk, Sussex, Essex and the Wolds of Yorkshire? Does he propose to set up large-scale farms in those depressed districts? If so, what is likely to be the result? In those districts, the chief crop is wheat. At the present moment, right throughout the world the problem is not how to produce wheat but how to get a market for the wheat when it has been produced. That is particularly the case in this country. Even if through the establishment of large-scale farms it might be possible to get a very large acreage which has gone out of cultivation back into cultivation, would it not be inevitable that the operation would prove to be economically unsound?
To-day farmers throughout the country are losing money, but the position under the Minister's proposal would be worse in two ways. Not only would the farmers themselves have further competition to fight against in the State-subsidised farms, but the State farms also would lose money, and the loss would fall not upon the individual, but upon the ratepayers and the public throughout the country. Therefore, in my view, large-scale cereal farming at the present juncture, or until, at any rate, you remedy the question of price, would be unwise and untimely.
If the Minister does not propose to adopt cereal farming on a large scale, does he propose to look into the question of poultry farming? I remember that in the Committee stage the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave a most interesting and indeed an amusing address about
a great poultry farm in the South of Scotland—I think it was Corstorphine—where there was an institution at which 200,000 laying hens were carrying out their duties most satisfactorily, and, further than that, that when the time came for them to depart this life there was an excellent machine which plucked the feathers of 120 birds in an hour. That is an experiment which has been carried out by private enterprise. We have had experiments before, so why is it necessary for the State to carry them out? The State might have a very successful venture, but is it necessary to spend public money when we have such an excellent example as that being carried out entirely through the initiative and private enterprise of a Scotsman?
Again, we have, throughout the country, examples of prosperous sheep farming under private enterprise even today, depressed as is the industry. A large part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent is devoted to sheep farming, and, although the House will appreciate that we who come from Yorkshire never admit that we are doing well, sometimes we are forced to admit that we are not taking as much harm from the present condition of things as other farmers in other parts of the industry. We have sheep farming being carried on under private enterprise, and I cannot conceive that large-scale sheep farming would be of any advantage to the State or of any educational value to those who may become farmers in later years.
I will refer to another branch of farming—dairy farming. There are many modern devices and methods of carrying on the milk trade, not the least of them being the milking machine. The milking is done by a mechanical process. In the Committee stage my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) painted a harrowing picture of a great milking machine, as big as one of the large power stations, milking 200,000 cows at one time, and, at every beat of the great machine, getting a pint of milk from each cow. That is a fantastic illustration, but I should like to ask the Minister whether it is his intention to attempt to carry on large-scale farming in relation to the milk industry? In the Committee we asked the Minister on more than one occasion to explain to us—and I ask him
again this evening as the House and the public have a right to know, when public money is being spent to this extent—in what direction is the money going to be spent? In the past, large-scale farms have not proved to be a success. It is admitted that they are experiments. When the industry is in such a serious condition, would it not be far better, if we have £1,000,000 to spend upon agriculture, to spend it in a manner which will really benefit the agricultural industry?

Dr. ADDISON: In what way?

8.0 p.m.

Captain DUGDALE: I should be out of order if I began discussing the question of helping farmers in regard to the question of prices. I should be on the borderline, and so I think I will leave the matter at that. I am convinced that if there is £1,000,000 available for agriculture, the very worst way in which we can spend it is upon large-scale farming. The Minister always wears a smile, and is always prepared to meet you, but he always just knows where he is and is always very careful not to be let in. I would point out to him that, 8.0 p.m. in my judgment, there is no demand for this Bill, either from the agricultural industry or from the unemployed people. This is not a wrecking Amendment, because this is not a vital part of the Bill. The Bill is a curious mixture of large-scale farming on the one hand and small-scale farming on the other. They are contrary the one to the other, and this part of the Bill is not vital to what, in my view, is the main and most important part of the Bill, namely, the portion dealing with smallholdings. Though many of us may not agree with the methods and the time, yet there is no contrary view, I am convinced, as to the principle of smallholdings. I would ask the Minister if he cannot see fit to remove from the Bill the part dealing with large-scale farming. It can but result in a large expenditure of public money, which is not justifiable, which is not demanded, and which will do no good either to the agricultural industry or to the unemployed people in this country at the present time.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment suggested to the Govern-
ment that they should leave out this part of the Bill and devote the £11,000,000 which is to be spent under it to some object more fruitful in benefit to agriculture, and the Minister interjected a query as to the direction in which this money might more profitably be spent. Of course, it is impossible to go into that question at length, but I might, in passing, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this £1,000,000 might be more fruitfully spent in one of several ways. To start with, I suppose he has not forgotten that the sugar-beet industry is faced with a great financial deficit, and he might help in that direction. Has he forgotten that the Royal Veterinary College is falling down? Perhaps £50,000 of that £1,000,000 might well and a great deal better have been applied to that particular purpose. Is he aware that wheat growing at this moment is wholly unprofitable and that £1,000,000 might have gone some way at least towards ensuring to the British farmer a more remunerative price for his wheat? I could go on, but these things leap to the mind at once.
To come back to the Amendment, I desire to frame my remarks rather in a series of questions to the right hon. Gentleman. I regret to have to do this, but, in view of the fact that during the protracted stages in Committee it was significant that we were never able to obtain clear and satisfactory replies from the right hon. Gentleman as to what his and the Government's intentions are in regard to this Bill, it is necessary to do it. I will start by asking this simple question: What is the purpose of this Clause, which proposes to set up farming on a large scale? There might be three purposes, and the first might be to give employment to more people. The State might say: "We will take over a large area of land for the express purpose of farming on a big scale and employing a very large number of people." Or they might say: "Our purpose in the first instance is not so much to give extra employment as to increase the volume of output, of production, in this country from our soil." Or, thirdly, there might be this object—to produce foodstuffs from the soil of this country at a lower cost.
I wonder which of the three is the true object in the right hon. Gentleman's
mind. This third object, that of producing food at a lower cost, is unfortunately in almost direct conflict with the other two purposes, because, if you are going to produce food at a lower cost, it is certain that you will have to use a lower ratio of employment, and under the Jaw of diminishing returns it is clear that when we are operating at a very low level of prices, as we are at the present time, in order to produce at a lower cost it will be unprofitable to spend a great deal of money to secure a higher volume of employment. In order to get an answer from the right hon. Gentleman, I would put this to him: In introducing this Bill to the House, he based his claims for large-scale farming on two books. One was a book recently written by Professor Orwin.

Dr. ADDISON: I referred to some books, but I did not base my case on those books.

Lieut. - Colonel RUGGLES - BRISE: At all events, the right hon. Gentleman thought the book I have mentioned worth bringing in to supplement the other arguments.

Dr. ADDISON: That is another matter.

Lieut. - Colonel RUGGLES - BRISE: The other was an extract from the Selborne Report. It bas been pointed out in Committee upstairs, and very truly, that the right hon. Gentleman's quotation from the report was one taken, as an extract, from the context, and that the authors of that report expressly stated that when that report was read by anybody of an inquiring mind, no one particular portion should be taken out of its context. The right hon. Gentleman has committed the very mistake which the authors of the Selborne Report begged him not to make.
If his object is, as I assume it must be, to show the farmers of this country how to produce foodstuffs at a lower cost, in order that they may compete more successfully with their foreign competitors, one is driven to this corollary, that by so doing he will increase rather than decrease unemployment, which is hardly a desirable object at this moment. If, on the other hand, he is completely successful in showing the British farmer how to produce foodstuffs at a lower cost, will he have conferred a benefit on the British
farmer He is now having a terrible struggle to compete with the foreign competitor, and he is to have an added competitor in the shape of the State competing against him with his own money.
The second question that I should like to address to the right hon. Gentleman has already been dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover of the Amendment, and I will not dwell on it except to recapitulate the point. What is the form of farming in which the right hon. Gentleman intends to indulge? Surely he might tell us that. I have been at a loss to understand why he has been so reluctant hitherto to let us know what he really has in mind. Does he intend to go into large-scale farming by grouping together several large arable farms and by continuing the present methods, or is it his intention to convert these arable farms into one large prairie farm operated by machinery on a large scale? Or does he intend to make a great cattle ranch over a part of England, or to go in for milk production on a large scale? If the last-named, may I remind him that there is no lack of milk now in this country? Or is it pigs, or poultry, or potatoes that he has in mind? He has not told the House, he did not tell the Committee upstairs, and the country is completely at a loss to know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind; and I contend that it is not right that this House should give permission to the Government to spend this vast sum of money until we do know the direction in which it is going to be spent.
Again, what is to be the size of the farms which the right hon. Gentleman intends the Corporation to operate, and where are they to be? It is true that during the course of the Debates in Committee we had a reference from the right hon. Gentleman to the thousands of acres of land which would be suitable in the Welsh hills, but he did not tell us how many of those thousands of acres he intended to take over, nor did he tell us what he was going to use them for when he had acquired them. He left us again completely in the dark. But may I point out that in this country at this moment there is really no size of farm of which we have not numerous examples? We have examples of every kind of farm, from the smallest to the largest. The right hon. Gentleman reminded the
House, I think on the Second Reading, and certainly in Committee, of the large-scale farms in Lincolnshire run by Dennis Brothers, about which we have heard so much, and in fact he quoted, in his speech on the Second Reading, a passage from the book by Professor Orwin as follows:
I can point to a book published a few weeks ago by Professor Orwin, who points to a very considerable number of highly successful large-scale experiments where the man had the capital and the courage to undertake them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1930; col. 1894, Vol. 244.]
That entirely destroys the right hon. Gentleman's case for the State now to take a hand in large-scale farming. It is quite unnecessary. Unless he is going to demonstrate to the farmers of this country that there is a form of farming which nobody has yet tried successfully, then this £1,000,000 which he is asking us to vote for this experiment cannot be justified.
What is the purpose underlying this particular proposal of large-scale State farming? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us a satisfactory answer, if he cannot tell us the real purpose which he has in mind, the form of farming which he intends to operate, or what is the size of farm which he has in mind, then indeed the House is at a loss to know the purpose underlying this particular part of the Bill. Is it that he intends, under the guise of coming to the assistance of agriculture, to put in the thin end of the wedge and give the opportunity to the State to acquire large tracts of the land of this country? One is tempted to think that it must be so, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman's assertion to the contrary, and in the absence of an explanation of the purpose for which he requires this very large sum of money. Is it that the State, having acquired large tracts of the land of this country, will then proceed to go in for production and, by stages, eventually go through all the stages of distribution, exchange, and sale, until the State has got its grip on the whole of the agricultural production of this country? It may be that that is the purpose, and in the absence of a satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman, I think that that is the conclusion to which the House will come.

Dr. ADDISON: One part of the hon. and gallant Member's speech did betray imagination, lively imagination. I wish he had applied the same valuable quality to a consideration of the Amendment. He saw in this £1,000,000 some deep-laid plot which had been hatched somewhere in my grey matter, whereby the State, for £1,000,000, is going to evolve some sinister system to bring into its hands all the agricultural land of Britain and the production, distribution and exchange of all agricultural products. He certainly has a lively imagination. I do not think, however, that the picture which he drew calls for a reply, and I will leave it and try to deal with what is actually before us. I thank the Mover of the Amendment for his friendly reference to our interchanges upstairs, in which I am sure that his colleagues as well as my colleagues on this side will readily agree that he rendered a material, friendly and useful contribution.
As I listened to the arguments directed against our proposal, I tried to fit them in to the usual arguments which have been adduced from the dawn of history against any attempt at improvement, and I find them identical with any arguments that I can recall. They are the kind of objections that would have been brought forward against the spinning jenny or the steam engine. The proposal is wrong because it is new. The only reason why it is wrong is because it is new. The next objection is the amount involved—£1,000,000. I was in the House of Commons when we voted a considerable sum of money, very wisely, for the encouragement of irrigation of cotton growing areas in the Sudan.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: You did not vote it.

Dr. ADDISON: We did, it was a Vote-in-Aid. It took place a good many years ago.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A guaranteed loan.

Dr. ADDISON: Well, what is this that we are now voting? It is a vote of £1,000,000 to the corporation to use for a certain purpose. We voted a very much bigger sum of money to the Sudan Corporation, or to the body that preceded it. I am not objecting to that Vote; I approved of it. It justified itself. Were we told then, where the irrigation
channels were to be? Were we told then that the House of Commons was not to vote that money unless it knew exactly the acreage of land that was to be irrigated, what was going to be the cubic capacity of the channels, and the rest of it? Of course not. But when it comes to asking for £1,000,000 to help to improve the cultivation of the soil of Great Britain, I am asked to say months or years in advance where the farm is going to be, how big it will be, if it is going to be grass or pigs or anything else. Every detail is to be provided for the House of Commons in advance when it is a question of £1,000,000 for the land of Britain. But hon. Members will vote millions if it is for some great experiment abroad, without making the absurd demand for all these particulars in advance.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I asked the purpose.

Dr. ADDISON: The hon. and gallant Member asked where the farm was to be and how large it was to be. I say with the greatest possible respect that if we put that kind of a question in advance with regard to any public enterprise, we should never have had any public enterprise. I am being asked to do the impossible. I propose to set up a corporation, which will be as experienced as I can get it, charged with a duty, and I would never dream of tying them in advance as to precisely what they are going to do, any more than I would have tied the men who were charged with developing irrigation in the Sudan. I am asked to say what is the justification for this scheme, this very modest enterprise, as compared with many others. We are told—the hon. Member who moved the Amendment referred to this objection—that it means the mechanisation of the countryside, and a reduction in the amount of agricultural labour. We are told that agriculture is declining. We know that vast areas of land are going out of cultivation. Surely, then, it is a well-justified enterprise to see whether we cannot devise methods for preventing land from going out of cultivation. If we do that, we shall not minimise the labour employed on the land, we shall be keeping it there.
Take a particular case, which I expect several hon. Members will know, the large-scale grassland experiment for out-
door milk farming in Wiltshire. That is a very interesting and novel experiment covering, I believe, 2,500 acres, of which 1,800 acres are grasslands. The promoters of that scheme set about the novel use of the land on a large scale. They applied mechanised methods to milking. They adopted a wholesale way of doing the job. What was there on the land before, and what is there there now? There were practically no persons employed on the land before, the land was practically derelict, whereas to-day it is giving a living to 22 or 24 families. If that can be done in one place, why cannot it be done in another? The hon. and gallant Member challenged the wisdom of our proposal by saying that this sort of thing is happening everywhere. We cannot expect, the hon. and gallant Member would never expect, that an enterprising farmer, who is farming successfully on a large scale, would agree to have his accounts opened to the public. We could not expect him to give, in pamphlets or otherwise, the precise details of manuring methods, crop methods and other details. Will it not be an advantage if, by various means, we can multiply these experiments and can have an arrangement whereby the whole of the details are made freely and fully available to those whom they ought to interest? That is what we are aiming at. We could not expect it from a private individual.
I must confess that I am prejudiced by my early training in the fact that the kind of objection that is brought against this proposal is the objection that has always been brought against any experiment. If I were to tell the hon. and gallant Member that his logic is the logic of the troglodytes he might resent it; but really if we were to apply his logic to any proposed improvement we should still be living in caves. He really is applying the principles of the troglodytes to this proposal.
Let me give a practical illustration—I cannot mention the name publicly but I will supply the hon. Member with the particulars. It is the case of a farmer now operating an arable acreage of 4,301 acres. Of that acreage 2,451 were corn, 897 potatoes; and the other various crops. In addition there is a considerable acreage carrying 2,000 sheep, 2,200 pigs, 450 cattle; and so on. We have had the accounts examined and so
far as I know they appear to be correct. This land is being farmed by a farsighted and enterprising man with plenty of capital, and the permanent labour which was on that land before he took it was 34 per cent. less than it is now, and the casual labour 80 per cent. less. In regard to wages, the average standard wage in that area is 32s. per week, but taking the average earnings of three typical types of workmen on this farm for 52 weeks—he has introduced the system of piece-work—the earnings averaged 43s. 2d. per week, instead of the average county rate of 32s. That is a case where the thing is being done on a large scale and the result is not that the agricultural population is diminished but that there is more employment and better wages. Why should we not try and make this more available than it is now for the enlightened agricultural community? I can imagine no reason why we should not; and no reason has been advanced yet. We have had the doctrine of the troglodytes, but we have not yet had any reasons against doing this thing wisely and carefully.
What applies to enterprises in grassland cultivation also applies to the introduction of up-to-date methods and large-scale methods in other types of farming. An important ingredient for making agricultural methods more successful is to carry them more through to the end, that is to say, to get hold of the various processes because the waste between the actual product and its market is prodigious. In the case of large-scale operations it is possible in the case of milk to see that there is a sufficient unit of milk production to keep the creameries supplied, and this applies to other branches of agricultural production. Since this proposal was assailed in the House of Commons I naturally have thought a great deal about it and explored still further the justifications for it. My considered opinion is that if I had not introduced this proposal it would be a serious defect in the Bill.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We must certainly admire the courage of the Minister of Agriculture for his courageous speech in circumstances of his temporary ill-health. I hope he will soon recover. He has made a vehement and from his point of view a very courageous speech, and I
hope his throat will be none the worse for it. He has given me sufficient material to which to reply, and I will therefore refrain from asking him any questions. It is the first speech in which he has shown his hand on this matter, and I hope to be able to convince the House that really he has missed the main points of our doubts and criticisms and that he himself is guilty of serious contradictions and confusion of thought, which quite frankly, the country can ill afford from any Minister of Agriculture to-day.
Before I deal with the main arguments which arise let me clear away from the mind of the right hon. Gentleman some of his illusions. His first illusion is that those who doubt the wisdom of asking this nation to spend one million pounds upon experiments on large scale farms are opposing it because it is new. We do not recognise it as new. You can get examples from this country and many others of large scale farms, but we say that this is not the direction in which it is desirable, either from a scientific or food growing point of view and, above all, from a sociological point of view, in which England ought to travel. We hold that this Clause, and particularly these two words, outlines a policy which is wholly in the wrong direction and wholly contradictory to Part II of the Bill, which we believe to be the right line of advance; that is, towards smaller scale farms and the division of large holdings rather than the creation out of a number of small farms of these new great prairie farms.
I will give the basic reasons which lead me to these conclusions. The Minister said that we were troglodytes. He can go to his research stations and to the Ministry and find out whether they are convinced that I am a troglodyte and opposed to scientific experiment. I am not, and never have been. In fact, I am entirely the reverse. But I do maintain quite sincerely that this experiment, so far from being what he calls an improvement, so far from being likely to achieve the objects which those of us who care about the progress of agriculture have at heart, is likely to be an experiment in the opposite direction, and a definite dis-improvement of British agriculture. Let me take the case which he has given to
the House of 4,301 acres of arable land. In spite of the fact that the so-called percentages of employment have gone up in recent years, I just wonder whether the number of people employed on that farm including the proprietor and his central staff as well as the casual labour and the permanent labour, totalled as much as it would if those 4,301 acres were divided into 80 50-acre farms.

Dr. ADDISON: The right hon. Gentleman will be interested to learn that the men employed are actually more than were employed before. Moreover, I am sure that a great deal of this land would be quite unsuitable for the kind of subdivision the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.

Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: It would probably be necessary to divide the land into farms of different types. In any case I hold that adding acre to acre, with English conditions as they are, is a step in the wrong direction. Whatever Professor Orwin may say or Sir Daniel Hall, who has been much the most prominent person we have heard recently on this issue, the whole trend, where the geological and climatic conditions permit, should be towards the smaller family farms. Let us take what the Minister has said. The right hon. Gentleman has stated in effect, "I am not going to table many details. I am just going to give you a few examples, and I am going to leave the Corporation free to do the best they can in view of all the circumstances, and I am not going to tie them down." What are we saying in the Amendment? "We do not want you to tie them down; it is you who are tying them down to the words 'large scale'. Cut out those words and your million pounds will be spent upon all varieties of farms, and we hope more upon the small grassland farm, more upon the smaller type of experimental and object-lesson farm than upon these grandiose-prairie farms."
Let me deal with the type of scientific argument that is used in favour of these developments. You do reduce costs of production, but at the same time you do decrease yield per acre. Whereas in England the aim of British agriculture is to secure maximum yield per acre, wherever this mechanised large-scale business has been adopted, the object of it has been to work more economically
rather than to produce the maximum. That is certainly the whole method in the Argentine, in Canada and in some of the large-scale farms that have been tried in this country. Let us see how it is proposed to be done now. What is the argument? In order to grow cereals at a profit in England, against the competition of Canada, Australia, the Argentine and America—the competition of home-grown cereals is even more difficult against Canada and Australia than against most foreign countries—you will have to cheapen immensely the cost of production and you will have to do two things: you will have to cut out all animals on the farm and to go in literally for land liming, and nothing but chemical fertilisers and nothing but cereal crops, one after the other; and above all that you must not consider the bushels per acre but you must consider the cheapness of working.
Think what that means to England. It means cutting up the whole character of our farming where the land was enriched by animal husbandry. I believe Professor Orwin is fundamentally wrong in soil science, and if an attempt is made to do what has been foreshadowed, you will have what is yearly becoming more apparent, namely, that in the long run British soil under arable cultivation must be perpetually enriched, not with chemical manures, but with the types of manures which provide humus. You cannot possibly succeed in the long run on his basis. Sir Daniel Hall, in a mast interesting broadcast only a week or two ago—he is the scientific adviser to the Ministry—adopted, in the main, Professor Orwin's theory, though he did not necessarily advocate large-scale farming or even maintaining cereal cultivation on a varying scale, but he advocated the cutting out of all root crops and the abolition of any attempt to grow, in rotation with corn crops, swedes, mangels, turnips or any crop of that kind, even leguminous crops.
He advocated that policy because, he said, it is not so much the cereal crops but the root crops that are keeping up labour costs. There is probably no place in the world to day, except in the highly-protected countries, where wheat has paid its way. In Canada, the Argentine and Australia wheat is to-day being grown at a loss. Obviously that cannot go on indefinitely, and Governments all over
the world will sooner or later have to combine to stop it because the position to-day is perfectly impossible for the producers in every country in the world. Sir Daniel Hall advocates the cutting out of the root crops because, he says, the root crops are more expensive in labour and involve more labour than purely cereal husbandry, and the whole burden of that broadcast and of the advice given by the scientific adviser to the Ministry was to reduce labour and labour costs. He prefaced his broadcast by saying that when he began farming in this country a sack of wheat paid the week's wages of two weekly labourers, and that now the sack of wheat would only pay half a labourer for a fortnight and that the position had radically changed.
He admitted that, on certain land, cereals were desirable in the national interest, but he said that the all-important thing was to cut out all root crops and to have something like Professor Orwin's proposal, namely, two or three successive years of arable cultivation followed by two or three years of grass lands, even if those grass lands meant practically no return at all, because, during those three years when the land was under grass, the labour cost was cut out altogether. Our view is that the whole of the argument of the economists advanced in favour of endeavouring to apply large-scale farming in England, are—whether they say so on the face of it or not—based on a supposition that the one thing to do is to prairie-farm England, to reduce labour as far as possible, and, above all, to reduce the variety of crops and to alter the elaborate and, I believe, in the long run, the right system of continuous variable rotation. So far from believing that this would be an improvement, I say it would be a disimprovement. I say that it is not new and that it is an experiment which it would be undesirable to make.
Let me deal with the other argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that unless he does this with Government co-operation it is impossible to get at the costings and the accounts. That has not been the experience of leading agricultural economists and I do not believe that it is the experience of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I have heard leading agricultural economists describe Professor Orwin's accounts as most unscientific and unreliable but undoubtedly
the right hon. Gentleman can get very accurate accounts. Accurate accounts are being obtained year by year as to costings. They show that the agricultural depression at the moment is not due to the methods of production adopted in this country. It is not due to the size of the holdings in this country. It is due to the fact that this is the market which is most frequently upset, which is least stabilised and is most open to hostile economic forces. That is the basic reason why land is going out of cultivation and that is the reason why you can experiment under these proposed words, for year after year, but until you tackle the fundamental problem of stabilising prices for agricultural produce in this country, to the producers in this country, you cannot get a real advance in British agriculture.
To my mind the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the basic conditions in this country in regard to these types of cultivation. I speak only for myself when I say I am not one of those who believe that there is a great future for wheat farming in this country. In fact, I take the view that, if we are to continue wheat farming in this country, in present circumstances, it can only be done by means of subsidy and devices like the quota. But, taking the long view, it seems to me that, owing to the climatic and above all the geological conditions of this country, compared with the great plains of Canada, the Argentine and Australia, the growing of wheat in this country, at a profit, even on large-scale farms will be increasingly difficult as time goes on. Why? I go back to the fact, as I see it, that the parent wheat plant of the world, to which all our domestic and elaborately hybridized wheats go back, grows under what conditions? It grows on the slopes of Mount Hermon in Syria, half the year under snow and the other half the year in brilliant and continuous sunshine and it is harvested—or rather there in those mountains where it is a wild plant the grains fall to the earth—under climatic conditions in which no rain ever falls. Those are conditions almost identical with the conditions in the great prairies of Canada and minus the snow, almost identical with conditions in Australia. Broadly speaking wheat is grown there under conditions analogous to those which I have described.
As long as British wheat, either artificially, by the action of the State, or naturally by the cost of transport or world shortage of production—which is not likely to obtain again for many years—had an element of Protection which maintained its price; as long as England was ahead of other countries as regards a particular variety of high yielding wheat—in which respect other countries have been catching up on and are now almost passing us—it was possible to grow wheat in competition, but now you have to face the fact that the capricious, variable, humid climate of England is not suitable for large-scale wheat forming. Above all, there is no part of England where we can have large-scale farms like there are in Russia, in the Argentine, or in America, where there are great stretches of land all more or less of the same physical type and consistency. Look at the geological map of England—for geology is the basis of agriculture—and compare it with the geological map of Canada or the United States or Australia or the Argentine. The map of England is a great mosaic of colours, and every few miles, if you go by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway or the Great Northern Railway, you go from strata to strata; there is no common continuous stretch such as is found in the vast acreages of those new arable continents. What does that all point to? That British agriculture must be absolutely diversified, and must change from locality to locality, and even with the seasonal changes of years as the cycle of variable climatic conditions comes round.
Above all, let us always remember that the first object of British policy in regard to agriculture—and it comes so easily first that there is nothing that ought to be put as a close second—is the maintenance of the maximum number of human beings in the rural life of England. Owing to our over urbanisation, our whole civilisation is unbalanced, and the first sociological need for which the State ought to make sacrifices is the maximum number of human beings per acre on the land. The next point is that we can never compete in the markets of the world—or even in our own markets unless that market is controlled by the State—in those great mass-production products of agriculture. We can only compete in quality, and I think that we shall only
compete in quality, and particularly in the quality of our stock. Stock farming and stock production of all types of animals is the most fundamentally important thing of British agriculture. Is it desirable or necessary, in order to pursue that policy, to have nothing but large-scale farms? Has not the secret of our success in stock farming been rather the opposite?
9.0 p.m.
As the third abject of policy, we should do the best we can to keep the maximum area in this country under mixed farming, and not be led by theorists into advocating single types of farming, whether it be pure dairying or pure cereal cultivation. I am perfectly certain that what has made for progress, for invention, for such resources—and I believe that there are still great resources in our agricultural community and agricultural life—has been mixed farming. Looking to the future—it may be many generations hence—I believe that in all countries of the world, even in the prairies of Canada and the Argentine, in the long run all farming will tend sooner or later, even in the tropics, to mixed farming. Meanwhile, we have a great national asset in our mixed farms and I deplore the inclusion of these words "large scale" 9.0 p.m. because I think that this is an experiment on the wrong lines and in the wrong direction. I hope that the Committee, irrespective of party, will support us in objecting to these words, and will give to any agricultural corporation not a tied hand, but a free hand, to decide on what size and on what scale any experimental farms are to be instituted under this Bill. I am convinced that the right hon. Gentleman, in this matter, has been wrongly advised, that he is seeking a wrong purpose; and I hope that the agricultural community, who know a good deal and who have an instinctive dislike and dread of this policy, will continue to do their best to convince the right hon. Gentleman that along these lines there is no solution of the real agricultural problems to which he should be turning his attention, and that he is really wasting money, energy and time in endeavouring to convince the country that this is the sort of thing which should be done.

Lord STANLEY: The speech of the Minister of Agriculture has not removed any of my doubts about the two words which we want to remove from the Bill. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is not quite so original or ahead of the times as he thought he was while he was making his speech. I take the view of my right hon. Friend who has just spoken that our correct advance in agriculture is along the lines of getting the maximum yield of production, whether it be in stock, in crops, in milk, or in eggs. It would be infinitely better, if we had a certain sum available to be spent for agricultural purposes—which I can assure the right hon. Gentleman is very badly needed—that it would be better spent on small farms, on research, and on increasing production, rather than on any idea of trying experiments in prairie farming in this country. Our objection to these two words is not technical, but purely practical. We wish to assist the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to fulfil two of the many pledges which they made at the last election. One of the pledges was that they wanted to get as many people back on the land as possible, and the other was that they were going to make farming pay, both of which have been incorporated in the Title of the Bill. We consider that by removing these two words we shall be helping the right hon. Gentleman in his endeavours.
To look at it from the practical point of view, we have to ask ourselves three questions with regard to this idea of large-scale farming. First, is it going to good from a research or experimental point of view; second, is it going to help employment, and is it really going to settle a larger number of people on the land; and third, will the Government get value for the money and prove that farming can be made to pay? To take the first question, there is no necessity for having experimental work on such a large scale as is presupposed in the Bill. Research and experimental work are better carried on on a smaller scale over as large a variety of products as possible. The second question is: Is it going to have any effect on unemployment, and is it going to do what we all so much desire, that is, maintain a larger rural population in this country? Here, I think, the right hon. Gentleman gave
us an extraordinarily foolish example. He said that people who oppose new ideas like large-scale farming would have opposed the introduction of the spinning-jenny because it was new. If only he knew anything about the cotton industry, he would know that one of the main reasons for the trouble in that industry at the present time is the dislike of the introduction of new machinery, arising from the fear that it will reduce unemployment. And that will be the inevitable result of having large-scale farming carried on with all sorts of mechanical appliances. If it is going to pay it must inevitably reduce labour costs and reduce the number of men employed.
Then we come to the question whether we shall get value for money, and it is here that we come to our fundamental objection to the whole of the Socialist agricultural policy. Here, again, the right hon. Gentleman, if he is going to honour us with examples, must select them more cleverly. He instanced the fact that we were ready to grant millions of pounds to the Sudan while being reluctant to grant £1,000,000 to British agriculture. He quite forgot that in the case of the Sudan it was inevitably going to be a financial success, because we were to grow there a definite product for which there was a world demand and which we could sell at a profit.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the hon. Member will bear me out in saying that not one penny was actually paid to the Sudan by the British taxpayer. It was a guarantee of a loan, and as the business has been a success no call has ever been made in respect of the guarantee, and not a penny has been paid out.

Lord STANLEY: Yes, the whole point in regard to that loan was that the business was going to be a success, because there was a definite demand for the product. In the present instance, we are to go in for large-scale farming in the arable areas without having done anything to get a price which will cover the cost of production. The right hon. Gentleman showed by his rather thoughtless example the complete fallacy of dealing with agriculture without touching the question of prices. The right hon. Gentleman complained, I thought rather peevishly, that we were demanding too many details, and said he preferred to
leave the details to the corporation. But I think the House has a perfect right to have at least a rough outline of some of these details before the Bill passes from it. If the right hon. Gentleman has any ideas on the subject whatsoever, we want to know what sort of large-scale farming operations he intends to carry on. Is he going into those spheres of agriculture where things are fairly prosperous at the present moment? Is he going to try milk-farming on a large scale? If he proposes to turn a lot of the small farms into one large farm he will be doing something that is little short of criminal. On the other hand, if he intends to have large grazing farms in those parts of the country which are suitable for grazing then it is perfectly obvious that he must be turning men out of employment, and I do not see any useful object in allocating money for that purpose. And if he is going to try large-scale farming operations in arable areas it will be an absolute waste of public money. Everybody knows that it is a case of the larger the farm the larger the loss, at the present time. People are unable to produce crops at prices which show any profit at all.
We object very strongly to many things in the first part of the Bill, but there is nothing to which we object more strongly than to this proposed large-scale farming. There is nothing political behind our objections, they are purely practical, because we cannot see that the experiment will do any good. If £1,000,000 is to be given to assist farming there are many better ways in which it could be given. We do not believe this plan will bring any men back to the land or prove to us that farming can be made to pay. We do not believe that this Bill, although we approve of many parts of it, will be of any real benefit in dealing with the agricultural problem, because once again the Government have missed the crux of the whole matter, and that is the question of prices. Until we have the courage to be as original as the Minister of Agriculture tries to make out that he is, and unless we are prepared to launch out on new lines, agriculture in this country is never going to prosper. We can only hope that before it is too late, the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this large-scale farming is not a sensible proposition and will delete those two words from the Bill. My only
other hope is that if he fails to do so he will set up a corporation which has enough sense to see for itself that the scheme can never pay and will use the money allotted to it for more useful and profitable purposes.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: The Mover of this Amendment said he desired to test the opinion of the House as to the desirability of forming large-scale Government farms for experimental and other purposes. I gather from the speech of the Minister that that is what the party supporting him desire. It is curious to note how Socialists are always struggling to progress backwards. That has been true of them since the days of Jean Jacques Rousseau, and it is true of them to-day. Just as Rousseau wanted to go back to a primitive state of life, the charms of which existed principally in his own imagination, so the Socialist Members of this House desire that we should go back to a style of farming which might have been suitable were this a young and undeveloped country. I do not know where the Minister got his notion of large-scale farming from, but if he had studied other countries he must surely have been struck by the fact that though a new country may have started with very large farms, as the country has developed so the tendency has been for the size of farms to be reduced. That can be seen clearly in the Argentine, where the big cattle ranch is gradually giving way to the smaller though still large arable farm; and as the districts get more settled these big farms are, in turn, being split up. In this country we have long outgrown the stage of the big farm, generally speaking. Over the centuries we have developed a system of farms of a varied size, suitable to our country and suitable to our peculiar needs. There is something farcical in the idea that at this time of day we should endeavour to set up large-scale farms to show how farming should be carried on. Hon. Members opposite may think it is progress, but I think it could be much more fairly described as an endeavour to put back the clock.
The Minister was somewhat indignant at the suggestion that he should be asked at this stage to explain the type of farming which he and his friends propose to undertake on these large-scale farms.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was unreasonable to ask him to give us all the little details of what the corporation would do, but there is a great difference betwen giving all the little details and telling us nothing at all. Surely the Minister of Agriculture or one of his colleagues can tell us what types of farming they have in mind. Have they thought the question out. One or two suggestions have been made as to the possibilities of this change. May I ask whether there is anyone on the Government Front Bench who can say whether it is proposed to carry on large-scale pedigree breeding operations. All over the world you will find British pedigree stock imported almost regardless of price, which does not seem to suggest that there is much scope for instruction in the matter of breeding pedigree stock in this country.
If the suggestion is that we should go into any mass production of cereals, surely that conception arises from confusing the economic laws which affect a factory with those which affect a farm, because there is no parallel to be drawn between the conditions. You cannot compare the management of a factory, where you diminish your overhead costs, with the law of diminishing returns which operate in farms where, when you get a certain crop and you attempt to screw a bit more out of it, your crop will cost you more and not less per unit to produce. If we are to have large-scale farming, it can only be done by ignoring, to some extent, the difference between the land in different districts, very often in different farms, and in different fields on the same farm. If an endeavour is made to cultivate in the same way crops growing in fields which differ in their nature, the result can only be a wasteful method of production.
I will make only one other suggestion as to the possible use of large-scale farms, and that is that they might be used for growing fruit and vegetables. If that is done, surely that will be using public money to provide a form of competition against the growers of vegetables and fruit in this country who are, to a large extent, small growers. I should have thought that it would have been a much more useful proposition if some method had been suggested by the Minister for
protecting the existing small owners, who grow fruit and vegetables, from the competition which they already have to face from other countries, than to suggest the setting up of further competition against them in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Tariffs!"] I am afraid that a discussion on tariffs at this stage would not be in order.
We have also to consider how it is proposed to manage this enterprise. We want to know who is going to manage these large-scale farms. We are told in the Bill that something less than half of the directors of the corporation are to be people who know their business, and something less than half must have had practical experience of agriculture. I wonder who the others are to be? Apparently they are not to put any money of their own in the concern, and if we look at Clause 1, Sub-section (2, b), we shall observe that they are to be paid. Consequently, the Minister will be able to issue an advertisement: "Soft job going. No experienced agriculturist need apply." As to the cost of the experiment, the Minister of Agriculture spoke very lightly of £1,000,000. When we reflect about the large sums of money which the Minister of Agriculture has laid as a burden on this country in the matter of housing, naturally we do not expect him to regard £1,000,000 as being a very serious matter, particularly when it is somebody else's money.
In regard to this discussion about large-scale farming, the Minister spoke as though it was a new thing, and he suggested that we objected to it on that account. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that large-scale farming is a new idea, because it is not. We know where it has been tried elsewhere, and we know the result. It was tried in Queensland, and for the year ending 30th June, 1928, when privately-managed concerns in Queensland were making money out of precisely the same operations, the Government-owned large-scale farms made a loss of over £1,250,000. The limit to the loss on large-scale farms will be determined by the amount of money that is put into them.

Colonel LANE FOX: The Minister of Agriculture has practically stated that our objections to this Clause are based upon our objections to the right hon. Gentle-
man's views on other subjects. I would like to remind him that there are many hon. Members on these benches who have had a good deal of experience in agriculture. For the right hon. Gentleman to suggest it is really the novelty of the proposal which is causing us to distrust it, is to say something obviously foolish. There is nothing new about large-scale farming. There is an attempt by a Minister—possibly a weak Minister, without much knowledge, and driven very likely by enthusiastic and over-bearing officials—to adopt a plan suggested by one or two fanatics, and which has never been proved a success in any other country in the world. Those who look on this as the worst part of a very foolish Bill and a disastrous waste of money which might otherwise be spent well on agriculture in other directions, are serious in desiring to help agriculture, and regard it as a mistaken policy. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us that there is a great deal of derelict land in this country, but he does not suggest that he is going to use it for large-scale farming. He complains that we have asked for details. We have asked that he should give us some sort of idea of the plan he has in mind, and we are not satisfied with his merely saying, "Never mind, I can set up a corporation and get the very best men I can, and they will see it through."
When the Minister gets the corporation, he must have some idea of what he is going to turn it to. What use can a corporation of that kind possibly be in achieving success, in the way suggested, with institutions such as those trotted out so regularly for inspection by the Under-Secretary for Scotland and others? I am getting tired of hearing about that wonderful poultry farm he mentioned. The Under-Secretary told us it was the only instance of large-scale farming of which he knew in Scotland. That is a curious argument in view of the fact that this wretched system is not desired by that country, judging by what has been said by representatives in the House this evening. How can you expect that the sort of body you will get as that corporation can possibly have the same success that these very special inlividuals have had with their own particular knowledge? Some who have made these farms a success are very exceptional
men. They are not men who will go about getting Government jobs, or men whom the Minister will get in the corporation by merely offering them big salaries. When you do get a collection of men in the corporation, they will never have the same success which an individual with one will and brain can have, as has been proved in several cases. I see nothing but failure. The whole experience of this country and many others is that a good individual can beat a good committee any day. We had an experience in the West Riding of the complete failure of a very capable body who ran a demonstration smallholding which was shortly afterwards handed over to an individual and then made a remarkable success. A capable individual will always beat any committee, however able they may be.
It has been mentioned that this experiment is bound to create unemployment and put men off the land. It might be worth while taking the risk if there was any corresponding advantage, but when you see nothing but failure, losses and waste of money, which might have been spent to greater advantage on agriculture in other directions, you have no right to risk the further disadvantage of creating more unemployment. We are fully entitled to ask the Minister where he is going to have these large-scale farms, when he is going to have them and how he proposes to run them? He has no right to complain that we are asking for too much detail. The House is entitled to know a good deal more than he has told us. We have been trying in Committee and in this House to get him to give us some idea what his policy is and what are his intentions. We believe he is merely following a vague plan based upon the report of the Selborne Committee. Everybody knows that that was a time when a good many rather unwise and foolish schemes were being suggested, and there were many men—and I speak with great respect for the author and chairman of that committee—whose minds were rather off their balance. Everybody knows the moment of the greatest sanity in this country was certainly not in 1921. I will conclude by saying that a project of this sort, based upon the report which emanated in the year 1921, and supported merely by one or two otherwise unsupported theorists,
like Professor Orwin and others who supported his scheme, is not one which the Minister is justified in bringing before this House without showing more knowledge of what he himself wants and intends, and without supplying us with a good deal more information.

Major MUIRHEAD: My general complaint against the Government is that whatever they do they create uncertainty. Their measures are uncertain, and the way they are put before the country is uncertain. At the very time when we want certainty in our national life, the Government, by everything they propose and do, seem to lead to greater uncertainty throughout the country. This particular Bill is no exception to that rule. Upstairs and downstairs and wherever we can, we have been pressing the Minister of Agriculture to tell us with some degree of certainty the sort of idea he has got in view, and what the Bill is going to do, and how the Bill will operate, not in any detail but in more general outline than its actual wording. We have never had an answer. I join certainly with the humanitarian motives of the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) in not wanting to put a greater strain on the voice of the Minister to-night. But I have no hesitation in asking a question, first, because he is not here so he will not have to answer it; and, secondly, because a fairly short experience of this House has taught me that, however many questions may be asked by however many people, there is no obligation whatever, moral or otherwise, for anybody to give an answer. In a way I can see the Floor of the House littered with asked and unanswered questions in the Debates of the last two days, so I have no hesitation while sympathising with the Minister's illness, in asking my question.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly the same question which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) asked earlier in the Debate. It is a question which not long ago in a Debate upon agriculture I asked myself in a general way. What is the real ultimate object of this Bill? Is it to produce more stuff, or to produce stuff at a cheaper cost, or to put more people in employment on the land?
If you can combine all these three things, well and good, but anybody who starts on a Bill like this has got to face up to the question, if any one of these things conflicts with the others, as to what order of precedence he is going to give to them—as to which is to go to the wall first and which is to go to the wall last. The Minister hedges; he dances from one to the other, and tries to get the best of all three worlds. He is like a racehorse owner who says, "I do not exactly know which horse is going to win, but I think I shall occupy all three places." About that question, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maldon and myself have both asked, there is nothing very original, because it was put very plainly and forcibly in the Majority Report of the Agricultural Tribunal of 1923.
The report of that body receives comparatively little attention. It was a very interesting report, though I do not say it was very convincing, because, although there were only three members of the Tribunal, they contrived to produce pretty long majority and minority reports. There was a great deal of interesting matter in that report, but the report is completely disregarded by the Minister of Agriculture, who always goes back to the Selborne Report. He is like a sort of kangaroo in reverse. He takes a great jump backwards and lands on the Selborne Report, having jumped right over the unfortunate Tribunal of 1923. That question, as I have said, was put by them with very great force, and, if the right hon. Gentleman has not already read their report, I would recommend to him the reading of it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Captain Dugdale), in very moderate language indeed, said he thought that this Bill was what he called a curious mixture. If I might borrow from my hon. Friends opposite a phrase which I am afraid is now rather hackneyed, but which, after all, they started, it is a dog's breakfast. There are large-scale scraps for the large dog, small-scale scraps for the small dog, and then, in Clause 3, there is a sort of reclaimed scrap for all the dogs in general. This all adds to the general uncertainty of the situation.
I want to take up another point which was made just now by my right hon.
and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox), and that is the taunt which is always being hurled at us that we object to these various provisions because they are new, that we say they are wrong because they are new. They are not new. I do not know whether the Minister has founded—he says he has not founded—his Bill on Mr. Orwin's latest book, but there is a most remarkable similarity of ideas and language between the two. Their ideas, so to speak, have "clicked." Therefore, I do not apologise for making a certain amount of use of Mr. Orwin's name and of some of his arguments. His book, or at all events the common idea between him and the Minister of Agriculture, is at the bottom of this Bill. It is no use blinking the fact that Mr. Orwin has big-scale organisation on the brain. First of all, some six or seven years ago he came out with his book on the nationalisation of the land, and it was grandiose in the extreme. Then he has come out with his recent book on "The Farming of the Future," and there is a very interesting thing which he has written still more recently. I have here an extract from the "Church Times," in which it is said that, in the December number of the Chichester Diocesan Gazette, Mr. Orwin advocates a sort of large-scale reorganisation of the diocese. [Laughter.] This is not funny; it is serious, because of the very wide wording of this Clause. It speaks of:
large-scale farming- operations and otherwise.
Under the very wide and ill-defined powers which the corporation are to possess, they might buy a rural deanery and recondition the clergy, and there would be nothing to stop them in the wording of this Bill.
Going back to Mr. Orwin and his book on "The Farming of the Future," he quotes three instances. It is part of his argument that this idea is not completely new, but that it has been tried before. Let us take the three instances that he gives. The first is that of Mr. Prout. He is dead, and his scheme is abandoned. Then there is Mr. Bayliss, and he is forced to admit at the present moment that he is not making a profit. The third instance is that of Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain has a farm within a few miles of my home. There is no question
of Mr. Chamberlain farming land that is likely to go out of cultivation. He farms on exceptionally good land, the last sort of land that is ever likely to go out of cultivation. You can make almost any farming system do on Mr. Chamberlain's land. I give him full credit for having done as well as he can, but there is this point. I give it openly as merely secondhand information, and I do not want anyone to accept it as anything more, but I am given to understand that Mr. Chamberlain quite recently has considerably reduced his labour staff. I think it would be worth the while of the Minister of Agriculture to investigate as to whether that is true before he is ready to take this last example out of Mr. Orwin's book, the example of Mr. Chamberlain, and treat it as something on which he can found his Bill. As I say, I do not give it as information that I have myself; I admit openly that I have it at secondhand. Mr. Orwin collected his data some little time ago, perhaps at the beginning of last year. If his ideas have been used in framing this Bill, they would have to be recast in the light of the disastrous fall in the price of wheat that has taken place within the last nine months.
I would like to say one thing about the traditional size of the English farm. Mr. Orwin comments on the fact that it is extraordinary how, over a long period, the traditional size of the English farm has, one season after another, remained more or less the same. There is one reason for that. It is not troglodyte, or stick-in-the-mud, or anything like that, but there is a factor which I do not think is given half as much importance in these Debates as it deserves, and that is the old and rather humorous question of the British climate. I often wish, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that, when we are having these agricultural Debates on day, you could order a portion roof to be removed—preferably other side of the House—

Mr. EDE: The rain ought to fall both on the just and on the unjust!

Major MUIRHEAD: That would introduce this really practical factor into our Debates. The reason why the English farm has remained more or less of the size that it is, is not so much that the English climate is good or bad, but that
it is uncertain. One of the great features of large-scale production and management is that a man engaged in industrial affairs can sit down with a good deal of certainty and make out his plans some way ahead, knowing that for the most part he can carry them through with a feeling of certainty, at all events for several weeks ahead. A farmer, be he ever so clever or keen on large-scale management, cannot do that. He is limited very definitely by the uncertainty of the English weather.
Imagine a farmer on a Sunday evening trying to map out his work for the week. He may take every precaution he can. He may have heard the weather reports on the wireless, he may be a student of Buchan's cycles, he may have noted the behaviour of the sheep, he may have observed the motions of the cows, and, before he goes to bed, he may have consulted that specious prophet after the event, the piece of seaweed on the wall: and then, having invoked all the aid of science and superstition, the whole thing may be shattered suddenly and drastically the following morning by an unexpected change in the weather. Then, unless there is someone on the spot with a sufficiency of knowledge and a sufficiency of authority to make a sudden change, to switch the labour from one thing to the other, there is a tremendous economic loss through people, and carts, and horses, and tractors hanging about, or moving from one end of the farm to the other.
The difference between the intelligent farmer and the slow kind of man who cannot adapt himself at a time like that is amazing. If you put it into pounds, shillings and pence you would find a most stupendous financial difference. Consequently, however big you make your farm, with the English climate—you might make it 5,000 or 15,000 acres—you have in the end to come down to managerial units of a certain limited size, because you must have on the spot, for a certain limited acreage of land, a man of sufficient experience and authority to make a quick, and very often a drastic, adjustment and so, however much you may think you are going to get advantage from these very large aggregations of land, you will always be limited in the end by that factor. It is not merely troglodytism which has kept
our farms of the size they are, but the very material limiting factor which the uncertainty of the English climate imposes on them.
We are anxious that this Bill should not encourage a mad sort of rush to large-scale farming and, therefore, throw people off their balance as regards the real merit of middle-scale mixed farming. An hon. Member who preceded me stood up for moderate mixed farming. I am a great believer in it myself, and one of the things I am frightened about is that this Clause, with its large-scale farming, will throw people off their balance and deter them from pursuing what I still believe to be the real true course of farming. The Minister said the great thing was to see these agricultural experiments through to the end. That is exactly it. It is because we doubt the end, and doubt the success of it, because we believe the Minister does not visualise in any way what the end is likely to be, or what he really wants it to be, because we believe the true end, the rehabilitation of English farming, can be achieved much better by other means, that we support the Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: The House is really carrying on this Debate under considerable difficulties. When we were discussing the Scottish question, we had the advantage of hearing the opposite point of view put from the Government Benches, but discipline has now been re-established. There is no longer any attempt to appeal to reason. The authority of the Government is to prevail, and the Pope does not want any justification for the inspired words which are embodied in the Bill. The argument that we have had from the Minister is that, as money has been spent on other objects, whether we have a good purpose in spending it on agriculture or otherwise, we are called upon to pour it out. He said we had spent £5,000,000 on developing cotton growing in the Sudan, and he seemed to think that was an argument for spending money on any object which, on his authority, might seem worth while in connection with agriculture. That money in the Sudan was well spent, because it was voted only after careful and expert inquiry.
That is not the case with the proposals that we are now discussing. The right
hon. Gentleman, in the Committee stage, seemed to think it was a reason for spending this money that other people had wasted money. He based his case on the fact that Mr. Hatry had been put in prison and said he did not know how much public money was lost there. We surely ought to adopt a more careful scrutiny of the objects on which we spend public money than can be justified by a comparison with those who come up against the criminal law in City ramps. The function of the House of Commons is to spend the money of which they are the trustees when returned to govern the country. The money that is wasted in the City is put in the power of those gamblers who break the law, by speculators with their eyes open, and really in these matters of public expenditure we are bound to see that we are not going to waste money, but are going to get really good value.
Our case against this large-scale experiment is that it is not a promising form of expenditure, and we all know that in present times we are up against great financial difficulties, and less than ever is there any justification for spending money on anything but necessities. We are certainly not justified in wasting money on unpromising experiments. If you go about the country and talk to agriculturists, you will not find any practical man who has any use for this large-scale experiment. We know quite well, and they know quite well, that any useful experiment is tried out at present. I will not mention names. These pioneers are familiar to all who are in touch with agriculture. Most of these large-scale experiments are carried out under the best scientific advice and with the advantage, which the Government would not possess, that the promoters keep the object of profit in the first place. I do not believe there is any better school for efficiency, no better trial for the best methods, than the school of necessity, when people are risking money which they cannot afford to lose.
The special experiments which seem to be in view, the only experiments that have been mentioned which have not already been tried out, are experiments in what are generally known as prairie methods of cultivation. The reason they have not been tried out is that practical
men have seen them in operation in other continents and under other climatic conditions and are convinced, without any trial, that they are not applicable to our special conditions. I remember when I was occupying the post now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman, discussing this matter in great detail with the leaders in the farming industry, and I suggested, on the advice of the technical experts who, no doubt, advise the right hon. Gentleman, that something might be gained from the mechanical development of the extensive cultivation on the other side of the Atlantic. I am satisfied that this has been very thoroughly considered by those with whom I discussed it, but, as a matter of fact, they did agree to go out and examine the matter from the special standpoint of British application and to give me a report.
They gave very strong grounds for the view that our climate was so absolutely different from the climate where these extensive methods were tried. The value of our land under our overcrowded conditions was so much greater than in these vast prairie tracts. The problem of drainage so completely transformed the condition of agriculture that the overseas methods were not applicable. We know that for generations past our heavy rainfall has caused a large outlay upon the draining of the land. If you are going to have great tracts of land under mechanised cultivation that enables the small output of man-power which is necessary in Canada, you have to fill in these open drains. You have to face a very heavy capital expenditure upon which, I am satisfied, there is no conceivable chance of an economic return. I was also convinced by those who were in a far better position to judge than I could ever hope to be from a technical point of view, that in our climate and under our conditions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) so conclusively pointed out to-night, cultivations are necessary which are entirely inapplicable to the extensive methods in other countries.
The only real authority backing the view with any justification for pouring out large sums of public money upon this kind of experiment is to be found in the very interesting writings of Pro-
fessor Orwin. He has thrown doubt upon the value of mixed farming, and he has argued that because we are so threatened in our economic return by the output of specialised agriculture in other parts of the world, we ought to try to adapt those specialised methods. The whole purport of all these arguments is that we must lower costs. Anyone who has read his book must know that the only suggestion which he makes for lowering costs in this connection is the reduction of man-power. It is a growing realisation that it is vital to the nation, quite apart from any shortsighted considerations of pounds, shillings and pence in this particular connection, to keep our present population on the land. We cannot afford more rural depopulation. If we have money to spend, we had much better spend it upon keeping up agricultural employment rather than upon experiments with a view to reducing it.
This Bill has as one of its main objects the purpose, which I support, of bringing people back to the land. I most of all oppose the proposal for experiment

on large-scale farming because I believe that if it has any positive result, it must be contrary to the other tendency of this Bill to try to bring people back to the land. The Minister would improve his Measure if he would cut out this provision. Far from interfering with the main purpose, it would greatly help. I oppose the Clause to allow large-scale farming for three reasons, first, because I am convinced it will be a waste of money; it will be spent upon research which, if it is not done at present, is only left on one side because practical men know that it is not worth while. I oppose it because it is not likely to prove anything of value; and, lastly, because, if it should prove what it sets out to prove, I believe it would have the fatal result of encouraging still further rural depopulation, and would decrease employment on the land.

Dr. ADDISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 242: Noes, 157.

Division No. 98.]
AYES.
[10.3 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Clarke, J. S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cluse, W. S.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Compton, Joseph
Haycock, A. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hayday, Arthur


Ammon, Charles George
Daggar, George
Hayes, John Henry


Angell, Sir Norman
Dallas, George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Arnott, John
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Dickson, T.
Herriotts, J.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dukes, C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Ayles, Walter
Duncan, Charles
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Ede, James Chuter
Hopkin, Daniel


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Edmunds, J. E.
Horrabin, J. F.


Barnes, Alfred John
Edwards, C. (Monmonth, Bedwellty)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hutchison. Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Bellamy, Albert
Evan, W. H.
Isaacs, George


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Elmley, Viscount
Jenkins, Sir William


Benson, G.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Blindell, James
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Johnston, Thomas


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Freeman, Peter
Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)


Bowen, J. W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gill, T. H.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gillett, George M.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Bromfield, William
Glassey, A. E.
Kelly, W. T.


Brothers, M.
Gossling, A. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Gould, F.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Kinley, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kirkwood, D.


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Burgess, F G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddlesbro' W.)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawrence, Susan


Calne, Derwent Hall-
Groves, Thomas E.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Cameron, A. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Leach, W.


Cape, Thomas
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lees, J.


Chater, Daniel
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Church, Major A. G
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Logan, David Gilbert
Palin, John Henry
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Longbottom, A. W.
Paling, Wilfrid
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Longden, F.
Palmer, E. T.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Perry, S. F.
Snell, Harry


Lunn, William
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Sorensen, R.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Stamford, Thomas W.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Stephen, Campbell


McElwee, A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


McEntee, V. L.
Potts, John S.
Strauss, G. R.


McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Price, M. P.
Sullivan, J.


McKinlay, A.
Pybus, Percy John
Sutton, J. E.


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


McShane, John James
Rathhone, Eleanor
Thurtle, Ernest


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Raynes, W. R.
Tinker, John Joseph


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Richards, R.
Toole, Joseph


Marcus, M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tout, W. J.


Markham, S. F.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Townend, A. E.


Marshall, Fred
Ritson, J.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Mathers, George
Romeril, H. G.
Vaughan, D. J.


Matters, L. W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Walker, J.


Melville, Sir James
Rowsun, Guy
Wallace, H. W.


Messer, Fred
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Middleton, G.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Millar, J. D.
Sanders, W. S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Milner, Major J.
Sawyer, G. F.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Montague, Frederick
Scrymgeour, E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Morqan Dr. H. B.
Scurr, John
West, F. R.


Morley, Ralph
Sexton, Sir James
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Mort, D. L.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Shield, George William
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Muff, G.
Shillaker, J. F.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Muggerldge, H. T.
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Naylor, T. E.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Winterton, G E. (Leicester, Louqhb'gh)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simmons, C. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)



Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
T. Henderson.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cranborne, Viscount
Hartington, Marquess of


Albery, Irvinq James
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l.,W.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)


Allen. Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dove[...])
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A


Atholl, Duchess of
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Iveagh, Countess of


Atkinson, C.
Davies, Maj. Geo F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Baillie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Dixey, A. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Beaumont, M. W.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Bird. Ernest Roy
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Boyce, Leslie
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bracken, B.
Ferguson, Sir John
Marjoribanks, Edward


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fison, F G. Clavering
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Briscoe, Richard George
Ford, Sir P. J
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Buchan, John
Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Butler, R. A.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Campbell, E. T.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Carver, Major W. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Muirhead, A. J.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson. Col. Rt. Hn.W. G. (Ptrst'ld)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Grenfell, Edward C (City of London)
O'Connor, T. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
O'Neill, Sir H.


Chamberlain.Rt Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Penny, Sir George


Christie, J. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon, Douglas H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Cockerill, Briq-General Sir George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ramsbotham, H.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hanbury, C.
Reid, David D, (County Down)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, John R.




Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Smithers, Waldron
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Ross, Major Ronald D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.
Stanley, Lord, (Fylde)
Woyland, Sir William A.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Wells, Sydney R.


Salmon, Major I.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Tinne, J. A.
Withers, Sir John James


Savery, S. S.
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Train, J.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement



Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne,C.)
Turton, Robert Hugh
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Captain Margesson and Major the




Marquess of Titchfield.

Question put accordingly, "That the words 'large scale' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 161.

Division No. 99.]
AYES.
[10.13 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gillett, George M.
McElwee, A.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Glassey, A. E.
McEntee, V. L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gossling, A. G.
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston>


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gould, F.
McKinlay, A.


Alpass, J. H.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Angell, Sir Norman
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McShane, John James


Arnott, John
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Aske, Sir Robert
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marcus, M.


Ayles, Walter
Groves, Thomas E.
Markham, S. F.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Marshall, Fred


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mathers, George


Barnes, Alfred John
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Matters, L. W.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, James


Bellamy, Albert
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Melville, Sir James


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Messer, Fred


Benson, G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Middleton, G.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Milner, Major J.


Bowen, J. W.
Haycock, A. W.
Montague, Frederick


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayday, Arthur
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hayes, John Henry
Morley, Ralph


Brockway, A. Fenner
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bromfield, William
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mort, D. L.


Brothers, M.
Herriotts, J.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Muff, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hopkin, Daniel
Muggeridge, H. T.


Buchanan, G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Naylor, T. E.


Burgess, F. G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Isaacs, George
Noel Baker, P. J.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Jenkins, Sir William
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Calne, Derwent Hall
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oldfield, J. R.


Cameron, A. G.
Johnston, Thomas
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Palin, John Henry


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Paling, Wilfrid


Charleton, H. C.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palmer, E. T.


Church, Major A. G.
Jowitt, Sir W. A. (Preston)
Perry, S. F.


Clarke, J. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Compton, Joseph
Kinley, J.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, D.
Pole, Major D. G.


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Potts, John S.


Dallas, George
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Price, M. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Pybus, Percy John


Dickson, T.
Lawrence, Susan
Quibell, D. J. K.


Dukes, C.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Duncan, Charles
Leach, W.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Ede, James Chuter
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Raynes, W. R.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Richards, R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lees, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lewis. T. (Southampton)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Egan, W. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Ritson, J.


Elmley, Viscount
Logan, David Gilbert
Romeril, H. G.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Longhottom, A. W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Foot, Isaac
Longden, F.
Rowson, Guy


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Freeman, Peter
Lunn, William
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sanders, W. S.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sawyer, G. F.


Gill, T. H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Scrymgeour, E.




Scurr, John
Sor[...]nsen, R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Sexton, Sir James
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Shield, George William
Strauss, G. R.
West, F. R.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Sullivan, J.
White, H. G.


Shillaker, J. F.
Sutton, J. E
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shinwell, E.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Simmons, C. J.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sitch Charles H.
Toole, Joseph
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Tout, W. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Townend, A. E.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Lounhb'gh)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Vaughan, D. J.



Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Walker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Snell, Harry
Wallace, H. W.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)
T. Henderson.




NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Albery, Irving James
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Everard, W. Lindsay
O'Connor, T. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ferguson, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atholl, Duchess of
Ford, Sir P. J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Atkinson, C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Remer, John R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Beaumont, M. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Salmon, Major I.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Boyce, Leslie
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Savery, S. S.


Bracken, B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hanbury, C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smithers, Waldron


Buchan, John
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Somerville, A. A, (Windsor)


Butler, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cadonan, Major Hon. Edward
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Campbell, E. T.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hutchison. Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth,S.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Thomson, Sir F.


Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Tinne, J. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Christle, J. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Train, J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colville, Major D. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Locker-Lampson. Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Long, Major Hon. Erie
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D, (I. of W.)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
MacLaren, Andrew
Wells, Sydney R.


Daikeith, Earl of
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Withers, Sir John James


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dawson, Sir Philip
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Dixey, A. C.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.



Duckworth, G. A. V.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
and Sir George Penny.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that the affairs of the corporation as regards Scotland shall be administered, controlled, and managed by a subcommittee of the board, which shall hold its
meetings in Scotland, and such sub-committee shall have the right to co-opt additional members to the extent of one-third of its number.
Much of the time this evening has been taken up by the question as to whether Scotland should be excluded from large-scale farming. We felt that Scotland should be excluded, but the House has seen fit to include Scotland in these operations, and that is why I am proposing this Amendment. In Clause 1 provision is made for the conduct of large-scale farming by a Board of Directors, which is to be comprised of at least five members and not more than 10. When this question was before the Committee upstairs I moved an Amendment that a certain proportion of these directors should be Scotsmen, or Members who understood the conditions of farming in Scotland. That was defeated, but we moved another Amendment to the effect that a sub-committee, somewhat on the lines of this Amendment, should be set up to manage affairs in Scotland. I rather gather from what has been said that the Government look with some favour on the proposal of a Committee in Scotland to manage large-scale farming, and I am glad that at last we have persuaded the Government to adopt this method. I understand, however, that the Minister of Agriculture is unable to accept the Amendment as it stands on the Paper, and has suggested that he should consult with us and propose a form of words which would meet our approval. It is rather strange that we should have to wait until this late hour in the proceedings of this Bill in order to discuss the interests of Scotland.
In the Committee upstairs I raised the question of the proper representation of Scotland, and the Secretary of State informed me that the interests of Scotland were very dear to his heart and would be safeguarded. After those words it is rather extraordinary that we have had to wait until the Report stage, and that it was necessary for my friends and myself to put on the Paper an Amendment again drawing attention to this matter. In Standing Committee the Secretary of State said that adequate representation on the Corporation would be assured to Scotland. We find no such representation provided for even now. On the question of a sub-commitee to manage the
affairs of Scotland the Minister of Agriculture said:
We can have a friendly discussion with respect to the management of the affairs of Scotland as it is raised in the later Amendment. …. I cannot give an undertaking at this stage that we will accept these words, because clearly they would not be workable, but at the same time, in the event of special arrangements being made in Scotland, I am perfectly willing to consider whether we can meet the hon. and gallant Member at a later stage in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee B), 27th November, 1930; cols. 92 and 93.]
I do not know whether my friends were approached by the Government with reference to these arrangements, but at any rate I have heard nothing about it, and that is the reason for moving this Amendment. We have a very strong case here for Scotland. If we are to have large-scale farming in Scotland we want it to be managed by people who understand Scottish agriculture.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment is perfectly correct in saying that an undertaking was given that an effort would be made to find a suitable form of words which would meet the desires of hon. Members in every part of the House. It has not been a very easy matter to get a form of words which would cover the real power in Scotland while at the same time vesting the financial control in a corporation which would require to have negotiating powers and borrowing powers with the banks. After considerable discussion we have reached what I understand is agreement among the representatives of all parties and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read the suggested Amendment:
In Clause 1, page 2, line 14, at the end, insert the words:
'(c) Provide for the administration and management of the operations of the Corporation in Scotland by means of a committee of the directors, acting in consultation with such number of persons, having practical experience of agriculture in Scotland, as may he specified in the Order.'
If hon. Members opposite withdraw their Amendment, which could not possibly be agreed to, we are prepared to move an Amendment in that form which I understand would be generally acceptable.

Major ELLIOT: The good will of the Government in desiring to meet our case is recognised by us. We realise that there is a desire to meet the will of the House, as expressed in several quarters, but the House as a whole has had no opportunity of considering the form of words suggested by the Under-Secretary. Subject to the usual considerations, to which a manuscript Amendment must be subject, I, personally, think that the Government have made a serious effort to meet our position in this matter. There are one or two points to which I draw attention. For instance, our Amendment suggests that the committee should meet in Scotland, but I do not see any proposal in the manuscript Amendment suggested by the Under-Secretary to that effect. At the same time, I think that the Mover of the Amendment now before the House would be willing to withdraw, in consideration of the genuine attempt of the Government to produce a form of words agreeing to the delegation of these duties, as far as Scotland is concerned, to a Scottish sub-committee. I wish to make it clear however that I have had little opportunity of considering the suggested Amendment and I have had no opportunity at all of considering it in conjunction with my Friends. The Under-Secretary makes the point that this committee must be subject to ultimate financial control vested in the corporation. We propose to move further Amendments providing that our eleven-eightieths proportion should be reserved for the operations in Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: The cash nexus.

Major ELLIOT: If the hon. and gallant Member were as enthusiastic for the interests of his native country, as we are for the interests of ours, he would not have so many grievances in general. We are protecting the interests of our country and I am sure that he, as an enthusiastic nationalist, will not object. Financial control is, of course, fundamental to the real authority of this sub-committee and we desire that financial control, as regards the Scottish proportion, should be vested, as far as possible, in the subcommittee. We also desire that, in some way or other, possibly in the Order, the Scottish Office should indicate that the meetings of this body are to be held as far as possible in Scotland, either in the
capital or in some of the areas where it is proposed to conduct these operations. We attach importance not only to the consultation of experts who will be available in Scotland but would not be available at all or would only be available with difficulty in Whitehall but also to the influence of the atmosphere which they will enjoy when sitting in the country to which their operations have reference. We know the effect on those about to engage in such discussions of the mephitic influence of an all-night journey in one or other of the admirable expresses running between here and Scotland.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: The Scotch mist!

Major ELLIOT: That, at any rate, is something better than the London fog. Those of us who have experience of London know that one of the reasons for the rapid conclusion of the Indian Conference was the desire of those who took part to escape before they were all poisoned. The desirability of some such body as is suggested to deal with the problem in Scotland is now accepted in all parts of the House. The Government have shown a sincere desire to meet the spirit as well as the letter of the Amendment, and in the belief that that is the desire of the Government, we shall be willing to withdraw the form of words of our Amendment. The Government, however, have left themselves a certain amount of discretion in the fact that they are going to specify by order certain of the conditions under which the subcommittee will work. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the request which we have made that, as far as possible, the sub-committee shall enjoy financial autonomy, and that it shall have a geographical location in the country which it is to administer. With these conditions, I think that it will be possible for my hon. Friend to withdraw the Amendment.

Several HON. MEMBERS rost—

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought that the Amendment was to be withdrawn.

Major ELLIOT: I have specifically refrained from withdrawing the Amendment myself. It was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith), who has not withdrawn it, but I understand that at a later
stage he will ask leave to withdraw, giving up the opportunity to the House to voice its opinion in the meantime; otherwise, we shall be able to do nothing until we come to the manuscript Amendment of the Government. Manuscript Amendments always involve a certain amount of difficulty as compared with Amendments which appear on the Order Paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: It seems to me reasonable that we should not discuss an Amendment which is going to be withdrawn.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Does it follow that it will be withdrawn unless we can understand, if you allow us to do so, what is the exact implication of the Government Amendment? What would appear, subject to your Ruling, to be wise is for the meaning of the Government alternative Amendment to be made clear before the hon. Member who moved the present Amendment withdraws it.

Mr. SPEAKER: Obviously, if there is an Amendment before the House, the House is at libertly to discuss it. I was only making a suggestion that it seems to me reasonable not to discuss an Amendment which, after it has been discussed, is going to be withdrawn. I understood from the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) that his hon. Friend would withdraw it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Further to that point of Order. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there is not a Scottish Member amongst those who are desiring to continue this discussion. They are all English, although this is essentially a Scottish question.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: As this is a matter in which England is involved I should be very much obliged if I might be allowed to argue on that point. I object to the Amendment before us and to the Amendment suggested by the Government, unless England is to get some consideration. As far as I can gather, Scotland is to be allowed to set up a separate committee to work these large-scale farms in Scotland. They will have real power, though there is a provision that the financial control is to be placed in the corporation. I ask that the same conditions shall apply in England, and unless I get consideration from the
Government I and other Members will persist in our demands. Scottish Members, by their persistence throughout the day, have got what they want for Scotland, and I think that it is time we stood up for England. Member after Member has argued about the necessity of Scotland being dealt with on a different plane, and this is the last chance we shall have of insisting on a similar committee for England. Scotland will have some Members upon the English authority, and there is a danger, if there is a Scottish committee, that they may say: "We do not believe in large-scale farming for Scotland, but if it is to be tried let it be tried in England."

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Try it on the dog!

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: That is right. They will say that it should be tried in England, and if found to be a success there it can then be adopted in Scotland. That is the way we are being treated, and I think it is time we put a stop to this state of things. I intend to oppose this Amendment, and I hope English Members will support me until we get satisfaction. Why should we in England be at the mercy of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary?

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I endeavour to remove what it, perhaps, a legitimate enough apprehension in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member and some of his friends. In the Bill as it now stands a corporation is to be set up of not more than nine persons, and the dominant partner in this House will expect to have the larger proportion of the members of this corporation. Apprehensions have been expressed on behalf of Scottish agriculture that its interests may not be safeguarded on that corporation in administrative matters and in the details of any operations which are conducted in Scotland. All that we propose is that in the case of any operations which are to be conducted in Scotland there shall be a Scottish committee of persons of practical experience of agriculture in Scotland who shall—

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the Under-Secretary read the words of his proposed Amendment?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I cannot speak on the Amendment.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The Under-Secretary has already made one speech on this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can only speak again by leave of the House.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: Naturally, we want to get this matter placed on a proper footing, and really the blame does not rest with us. It was admitted by the Government that they intended to deal with this point. Only last night the Government came forward with this suggestion. I am trying to facilitate the work of the Government, and in order to save time I am ready to withdraw my Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not unusual for an Amendment to be withdrawn and a similar one moved in other words.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would like to point out what is the choice before the House. Is it whether we should vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. R. W. Smith) or whether we should vote for the manuscript Amendment which has been read out by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland? It is quite clear that if the choice is between those two alternatives, there are a good many hon. Members on this side who object to this Amendment being withdrawn until they are given to understand what is the exact meaning of the Amendment suggested by the Under-Secretary. I am anxious to clear the position, but I am uncertain as to what the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland means by his proposal. The remarks which the hon. Member made in his second speech seem to have been inconsistent with the actual terms of the Amendment which he handed in a few minutes ago.
It appears to me that what was really proposed by the Under-Secretary was that members of the Corporation should act in consultation with certain individuals who were to be conversant with Scottish agriculture. If there is any meaning in these words it is that certain members of the Corporation should ask for the opinion of members conversant with agriculture in Scotland, but that there would be no obligation on them to abide by that advice. Further, they would have afterwards to refer to
the Corporation and the Corporation might then take any decision they wished. That was quite inconsistent with what the hon. Gentleman was saying as to there being a Scottish Committee to deal with it. It is only for that reason that some hon. Members on this side were unwilling to allow this Amendment to be negatived until they had had a chance of examining a little further the alternative to be accepted in its place.

Viscount WOLMER: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said I suggest to the Government that we should adjourn the Debate now as I understand another Bill, to which there is no opposition, is to be brought forward. We can then see the alternative Amendment, and hon. Members on this side will be able to know which one they prefer.

Dr. ADDISON: It really is not quite fair, seeing that two hours ago it was arranged in the usual way that we should submit alternative wording. These words were drawn up with those in charge of the Amendment and accepted as a fair alternative. I think, in view of the understanding that was arrived at, it might be accepted now as a substitute, that the House should allow us to put it in the Bill, and then we could adjourn. It really is extraordinarily difficult on any occasion to make arrangements if they are to be thrown over afterwards.

Sir J. LAMB: On a point of Order. I want to ask, in view of the fact that we are asked to substitute something which we have never seen for the wording on the Order Paper, whether it would be possible for another Amendment to be accepted by you, Mr. Speaker, later on, if we agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment of the hon. Member?

Major ELLIOT: I understand the Motion before the House is that the Debate should be adjourned, and it is on that motion that I am speaking. None of us would desire in any way to throw over or even to be negligent of any arrangement come to in the usual way. The Under-Secretary will agree that it was only during the Division that he was able to hand me the words agreed upon by the Government, and he will also
agree that those words to some extent concern not only Scotland but also England, and there has really been very little time to consult the English Members upon it. The desire of us all is that some such words should be added to the Bill and some arrangement come to whereby it would be possible to see the words first. It would be really for the convenience of the Committee to see the words upon which hon. Members are asked to give a decision. The time is very short, and it would meet the general convenience if the Debate were terminated on this occasion, and if it were possible for me to give an assurance to the Minister of Agriculture that no factious opposition or delay would take place on the re-commencement of the Debate. We could clear the matter up in a very few minutes. I think it would be the desire of the House, as a whole, that we should not finally part with the wording as it is on the Paper before having a chance of seeing the alternative I can give an assurance on behalf of my hon. Friends that, at the very earliest stage after the re-commencement of the Debate the matter would be disposed of and that the Minister would lose no time by so doing. I do not know whether it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to speak again in that sense, or whether some other Minister could say whether this course of action is agreed to.

Dr. ADDISON: If I may speak again by the leave of the House, I must say that this is an arrangement with which I do not remember to have been faced before, and I am rather taken by surprise. If I understand that the undertaking of the hon. and gallant Member can be made good, on that understanding I will accept the arrangement, but it must be an understanding, and he and the right hon. Gentleman opposite must be parties to it, that, if we adopt this suggestion, we shall be able to dispose of this matter in a very short time. On that understanding I will accept the Motion, but I hope that it will be an understanding.

Sir D. HERBERT: I desire to protest in the strongest possible way against what I regard, or what, at any rate, some years ago would have been regarded, as most unparliamentary procedure on
the part of the right hon. Gentleman, in attempting to dictate to the House what should be done as the result of some arrangement between himself, two or three of his colleagues, and two or three Members on the benches on this side of the House. There are plenty of us on this side who have been watching this Debate with considerable interest, and we do not see why we should abdicate our rights and our duties as Members of Parliament and see this matter rushed through without our being able to consider it. So far as regards the question of an understanding that there is to be no factious opposition when this matter is discussed again, I for my part am quite willing to give that undertaking; but I do think it is very necessary that, when a Motion to adjourn the Debate is made in such a way as this, a protest should be made against what has occasionally happened, namely, an attempt to take away from the body of this House as a whole their rights and duties, and to delegate them to a Minister, a couple of his colleagues, and two or three Members on the other side of the House.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) in his protest, and in everything else that he has said. It is monstrous that the Government, having hopelessly confused the business of the House, should expect us to accept an Amendment which we have never seen, coming on a minute or two before Eleven, and then, after the appalling way in which the Minister has treated many of us, try to make us pledge ourselves that we will take no further interest in this matter, which is vital from the English point of view. I do not think it is possible to emphasize too strongly that on these occasions there should either be a definite clean-cut arrangement, or that, until such an arrangement is made, the ordinary back-bench private Member should have a fair show and a fair look-in. It is evident, from what has been happening during the last few minutes, that an attempt has been made by a few Scottish Members to get something inserted into this Bill. Whether they are right or wrong we have not had the chance of finding out. While we are disposing of one Amendment, another Amendment is thrown at our heads which we have never even seen. That creates
a state of confusion that I think any Member of the House, whether above or below the Gangway—
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate lapsed without Question put, and the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Monday next, 2nd February.

CUMBERLAND MARKET (ST. PANCRAS) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, three to be nominated by the House and two by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered,
That all Petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

SOLICITORS (CLIENTS' ACCOUNTS) BILL.

Sir D. HERBERT: I beg to move,
That it is expedient that the Solicitors (Clients' Accounts) Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.
Those who are interested will remember that the Bill that received a Second Reading on Friday last at the instance of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Withers) was referred—

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Can this be discussed after Eleven o'clock?

Mr. SPEAKER: It cannot be taken if it is objected to.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I object.

Consideration deferred until Monday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (PRIVATE SCHOOLS).

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I want to raise a subject which I think is of very great importance. The President of the Board of Education has appointed a committee to inquire into the question of private schools. At the last general election the representatives of the Labour party gave an undertaking which I think the House should now be aware of, Writing on 8th May to the Association of Headmistresses, the present Foreign Secretary said this. The most important part of the communication from the Association of Headmistresses was a resolution:
That in the interests of the education of the country it is essential that no private school shall be carried on which has not been inspected and licensed by the Board of Education.
To that the Foreign Secretary replied:
The full acceptance by the Labour party of the principle of equality of opportunity and the organisation of the educational system as a single and continuous whole from the nursery school to the university implies the inspection and licensing of private schools to ensure that they are an efficient part of the school system.
I do not want to comment upon that very remarkable declaration except to point out that its logic would carry us very much beyond the subject to which it was primarily addressed, but clearly if the organisation of the educational system of a single and continuous whole from the nursery school to the university involves the inspection and licensing of the private school, it also involves the inspection and licensing of the university. The first question which I should like to ask the President of the Board of Education is whether that was made the policy of the Labour party and also of the present Government, and, if it is the policy of the present Government, what is the good of appointing a committee to consider a question which the Government have already prejudged?
I pass to the appointment of the committee itself. I do not want to express any opinion at all on the merits of the question of the treatment of private schools. It is a very large, a very important, and a very complicated ques-
tion to which any Government must address itself in the present circumstances. I had formed very clear ideas of the way in which the problems should be tackled, and I had hoped to incorporate those ideas into the revision of the Education Act which I had promised. I am not going to enter into that question to-night, but, whatever may be the merits of the question, two things are clear: One is that it involves no mere question of educational administration but a very large question of public policy, because it involves the conversion of the Board of Education, which hitherto has always controlled education as a grant giving body, laying down the conditions for the receipt of Parliamentary grants, into a body which, quite apart from any grant giving functions, will be a controller, inspector and licenser of schools which it does not aid in any way at all.
The second thing I would say is that it is a question on which feeling and suspicion run high. It is a question which you can only solve by getting what right hon. Gentlemen have so often referred to in another connection, a general agreement and a general all-round settlement to ensure fair play being given all round to every type of school and every type of educational interest. The right hon. Gentleman has appointed a Committee and, to begin with, I want to say that I think he has been extraordinarily fair in the composition of the committee from the party political standpoint. There are, I think, only three, possibly four, members of the committee of whom one can say that they are members of the Labour party. I should think the majority of the committee are probably members of my own party; and he has been extremely fair in the composition of the committee as regards the Members of this House.
But the outstanding fact about this Committee is that, out of the 16 members, 12 are either members of education committees, officers of education authorities, or teachers in State schools or State-aided schools. Of the remaining four, two are official members of associations of private schools. Does not that show an extraordinary lack of imagination when you are dealing with a very tense state of feeling on this
matter? You have ignored the whole range of public school education, as it is called in this country. You have ignored the universities completely, who are probably better able to judge than anyone else, the merits and demerits of private school education as compared with education in State and State-aided schools. You have ignored all the opportunities of mobilising on your side really responsible, independent, educational opinion; and you have preferred to appoint a purely bureaucratic Committee, representing the bureaucratic point of view.

Mr. EDE: He did not put the Noble Lord on it

Lord E. PERCY: No, and I quite agree that in leaving me off the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman has shown his single, solitary glimmer of imagination; but the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who interposes, is the Chairman of the Committee. He is a Member whom we all greatly respect for his character and for his ability, but he would probably agree that he himself is not unfairly described when I say that he does represent more or less, let us say, the administrative point of view, the point of view of the administrator of a system of public education.
I must add this because I raised the point in my question to-day: It is also true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that seven out of the 16 members of the Committee are already more or less identified with particular views on this subject, on one side or the other. No one supposes that they would have become members of the Committee if they were not quite sure that they could bring an unprejudiced and impartial judgment to bear on the question before them, but at the same time one has to remember, in dealing with a committee of this kind, that the important thing is not merely that it should be impartial, but that it should be recognised on all hands as certainly impartial and that there should be no breath of an idea that any large section of the Committee had already prejudged the question.
It seems to me that on this question, in regard to this committee, the right hon. Gentleman has missed a great opportunity. I do not discuss now whether the setting up of the committee was necessary
or not, or whether the right hon. Gentleman could not have taken his decision without the intervention of the committee, but if you were going to set up a committee you had a tremendous opportunity of mobilising, not only all that great body of opinion of the State-aided and State system of education and the public service of education, but you also had the opportunity of mobilising all that very public-spirited body of independent educational opinion which is just as anxious as any other section of opinion in the country to see that bad private schools are either brought up to standard or eliminated. All that great fund of public experience you have put on one side, and I felt bound to bring this ques- to the attention of the House and to express my regret that such an opportunity should have been so deplorably missed.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I speak as the president of the Private and Independent Schools Association, which is a body which represents in the largest and greatest degree the private schools. I feel great difficulty in offering any criticism of the composition of the Departmental Committee. It. contains several good friends of mine, and I have not the slightest doubt that the members of the committee will completely do their best to produce a just and useful report; but I am bound to say that collectively that committee does not command the confidence of the educational public. It certainly does not command the confidence of my association, and that lack of confidence is shared in other quarters. For instance, in the educational supplement of the "Times" of the 17th January, I find this passage:
As to the scope of the inquiry, the wording of the terms of reference is important. The Committee is asked to report not whether legislation is necessary, but what legislation or other changes are desirable. The range of the Committee's activities is thus explicitly preliminary and exploratory. Had it been otherwise the work of investigation would surely have been assigned either to the Royal Commission or preferably to the Consultative Committee of the Board which both by its constitution and powers is particularly adapted for pronouncing an authoritative opinion on educational organisation and on the means of regulating it.
I agree with my Noble Friend that the President of the Board of Education has lost a great opportunity. He has left
out of the constitution of the Committee educational elements which ought to be represented. Of course one does not ask that the members of this Committee should be new delegates but one does ask that some of them at any rate should have real inside knowledge of the working of private schools. The private and independent Schools Association exists very largely on the elimination of inefficient private schools. We welcome inspection. We want our schools to be as efficient as possible and when the whole system—and it is a very large and important part of the educational system of the country—is being examined we ask that on the Committee that examines it there should be real inside knowledge. If you appoint, for instance, a Departmental Committee on the working of electric railways, you put on that Committee not merely outside people but experts who have worked on railways and understand them from the inside. There are only two members of the Committee who have that inside knowledge. That is one way in which we think the Committee fails, and it also fails because it has left out of account large fields which might be drawn upon for strengthening the Committee. Even now if the Minister could see his way to place on that Committee at least one other member with real inside knowledge of the working of private schools it would be valuable day by day, as the Committee sits, in examining witnesses and sifting evidence, and would greatly strengthen the Committee and increase the confidence that might be felt in the Committee by the education authorities.

Mr. EDE: I intervene as Chairman of the Committee because I am sincerely desirous that this Committee should not conduct its further work in the atmosphere of discredit that might be inflicted upon it by the discussion this evening. May I say quite frankly that I do not accept the view of our functions that has been given by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville)? We have had three sittings, and at each I have endeavoured to bring before the minds of all sections of the Committee my view that it is their duty to sit there with open minds, to hear the evidence, and to frame a report on the evidence. It is not for me to criticise the form in which the Committee has been set up
I have received from the Independent Schools Association a letter in which they forwarded to me a copy of a resolution in which they say:
The council of the Independent Schools Association protests against the constitution of the Departmental Committee on Private Schools, as it considers that those who have practical knowledge of the question are inadequately represented; and asks that further suitable appointments may be made, that the Committee may fully and impartially carry out the specific terms of reference to the Committee, as it doubtless desires.
I reported to the Committee yesterday the following letter which I had sent in reply, and I understand that it was unanimously agreed to:
I will report your resolution to the committee, but I must at once demur from any suggestion that the committee is unlikely to carry out impartially the specific terms of reference, and I desire, as chairman of the committee, to assure your association that we shall take every opportunity of considering all the facts submitted to us, and that our findings will be based on the consideration of such evidence, and nothing else.
From my knowledge of the way in which the members have co-operated, that is the spirit in which they are approaching their task, but such expert knowledge as they have will not be obtruded on one another, and I cannot think of any more terrifying experience for myself as chairman than to preside, over a body of experts with different views on the same subject. We shall consider the views put before us in evidence and base our findings upon it. The hon. Member for Windsor has quoted from the "Times" Educational Supplement. I have the "Times" Educational Supplement of four weeks before, and that is plenty of time for modern journalism to complete a change of front. On the 13th December they wrote:
Some departmental committees are appointed for the purpose of shelving awkward questions, but the President of the Board of Education told the House of Commons last month that he was fully alive to the importance of the subject. There is no need to take lengthy evidence. The existence of these insanitary and inefficient schools is fully admitted, and all that the committee has to do is recommend that the Board of Education should be given full statutory powers to inspect private schools, and power to delegate inspection to the local authority. A report to that effect will be looked for early in the New Year.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: That is before the Departmental Committee was appointed.

Mr. EDE: No, I am not endeavouring to mislead the House. It was after we were appointed. It was supposed to be welcoming us and assuring us that "a short life and a gay one" would be our best epitaph. I assure the House that that is not the spirit in which the Committee approaches its task. It believes that it has important, national work to do. It will approach it with an open mind. It will hear the evidence, sufficiently and impartially, and upon that will endeavour to submit a report which it hopes will be of use to the President of the Board during the many years in which he will remain at his office.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I am not sure that it is desirable that I should say much. I do not think the House has been much impressed by the Noble Lord. He began by quoting a letter from the Board of Education, which I have not seen. [HON. MEMBERS:
"Oh!"] Everyone is perfectly aware that the Labour party are anxious about these private schools. Every decent educationist in the country knows that at least a small minority of the schools—we do not know how many—are untested, uncontrolled and unfit. The question is how many, and how they ought to be treated. It is a crime for me to appoint a Committee to do it. That apparently, is the Noble Lord's first point. The next thing in his speech is this: He says that he had clear ideas of the way in which the problem ought to be tackled, and that he would have incorporated them in a Bill—apparently without any inquiry. I prefer to know where I am going, and I prefer to get advice from a committee which I am certain is an impartial committee, and one which I think is probably a capable one.
The Noble Lord objects to the composition of the Committee. He says that it is bureaucratic. Why should it be a bureaucratic Committee because it has on it elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers and headmasters and headmistresses? There is a representative of the municipal corporations. I suppose that is bureaucratic. There is also one of His Majesty's Inspectors.
There I admit bureaucracy. It has on it one medical officer of health. The local education authorities are represented and there is a director of education. The Independent Schools' Association is represented, and the preparatory schools, and then there are five Members of Parliament. Frankly, I did not consult the Noble Lord about the two members whom I asked to represent Labour on the Committee. I think that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the hon. Member for West Bermondsey (Dr. Salter) are very well respected Members of this House and very impartial. I did consult the Conservative Whips' Office about the Conservative Members who are on the Committee—the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) and the hon. Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet)—and I believe they give perfect satisfaction on the other side. I consulted the Liberal Whips in connection with the appointment of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White).
This is the Committee which has hardly been criticised at all, except by the Noble Lord. I do not know why he should be so dissatisfied. I am perfectly satisfied
that the Committee is impartial in so far as we here can be impartial. The Chairman of the Committee is impartial. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is a man who has strong opinions, as I have, as the Noble Lord has, but we do not begin to be partial in dealing with these things because we have certain strong opinions. We all know that we have strong opinions. The honourable impartiality which pervades this House, however, does not obliterate our strong opinions, but makes us all try to be fair. I am certain that this Committee is going to try to be impartial. It is no more committed to any particular opinion than any other set of 15 people that I could have appointed. I am perfectly certain that it is going to do its best and that the ability of the members of the Committee will result in that best providing a very useful piece of advice even for the Noble Lord if he had the opportunity of legislating.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'Clock.